116 242. The Court will now proceed to analyze Article 25, based on the proven facts and the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility. 243. In Paraguay, the petition of generic habeas corpus filed in this case can be used to seek rectification of circumstances that restrict liberty or that threaten personal security; the purpose of that remedy is to protect the rights and guarantees of lawfully detained persons whose predicament is exacerbated by the fact that they are subjected to physical, psychological or moral violence. In the case sub judice, the petition of generic habeas corpus was not filed in connection with the cases being prosecuted against the inmates to determine the lawfulness of their detention; instead, it was filed with regard to the conditions at the Center at which the inmates were being detained. This remedy, therefore, is one that individuals have a right to invoke under Article 25 of the Convention. The petition of habeas corpus described the Center as a “medieval-style prison” that did not meet the minimum standards for sanitation, privacy and hygiene, and was constantly overcrowded, fostering promiscuity and violence. The inmates endured deprivations of all kinds and lived in inhumane conditions. 244. The analysis of the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention will be done from two perspectives: a) the effectiveness of the remedy of generic habeas corpus filed on November 12, 1993, which includes the speed at which a decision on this petition was forthcoming; and b) the State’s compliance with the writ of habeas corpus. a) The effectiveness of the remedy of generic habeas corpus 245. In its Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, the Court held that for a remedy to exist, “it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.”196 Clearly, a remedy will not be “truly effective” if it is not decided within a time frame that enables the violation being claimed to be corrected in time. 246. On the subject of habeas corpus, Article 133 of Paraguay’s 1992 Constitution provides that habeas corpus “proceedings shall be swift, summary and gratis.” In this regard, Paraguay’s own Supreme Court ruled that “inasmuch as this is a constitutional guarantee invoked precisely in order to defend an individual’s human rights, it is immediately exigible.” 247. It has been established (supra para. 134.27) that on November 12, 1993, a petition of generic habeas corpus was filed to seek judicial relief against the detention conditions under which the inmates at the Center at that time were living and to petition the court to order them relocated to proper facilities. It has also been established (supra para. 134.28) that the Civil and Commercial Law Judge of First Instance, Ninth Rotation, granted the petition of habeas corpus on July 31, 1998; in other words, almost five years after it had been filed. By whatever standard is used to determine whether a remedy was swift, the Court can only conclude that the 196 Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24. See also, Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 55, para. 136; Case of Cantos, supra note 59, para. 52; and Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paragraphs 136-137.