30 recourse to become effective, it must be ideal not only to solve alleged violation, but it must not also be illusory. In a concrete case, even when habeas corpus was an ideal recourse for the judicial authority to investigate and be aware of the situation of the missing people, Peruvian tribunals were limited to establish legality of detention and disregarded their obligation to inform victims' whereabouts, which was the fundamental objective of the recourse promoted by Mrs. Ugarte Rivera; c) Article 7(6) the Convention guarantees the access to this kind of recourses to protect the right to personal freedom and Article 27(2) of the Convention, regarding suspension of guarantees in states of emergency, it excludes the possibility for "the indispensable judicial guarantees" to be ineffective for the protection of the non abolished rights among which there are the habeas corpus and protection proceedings; d) regarding the limitation of access to a simple and rapid recourse, in the case of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera, it offers an identical situation to Neira Alegria Case. In the latter, the Court stated that the State had violated "Articles 7(6) and 27(2) of the Convention; under the implementation of the Supreme Order No. 012-86-IN and Supreme Order No. 006-86-JUS of June 2 and 6 [rectius 19], 1986, who declared the state of emergency in Lima and Callao provinces and a Restricted Military Zone in three penitentiaries, among them in San Juan Bautista". To this regard, the Court has stated that even though such orders did not suspend an habeas corpus proceeding or recourse [...] in fact, the fulfillment of both orders produced the inefficiency of the quoted protective instrument thus its suspension is to the detriment of alleged victims. Habeas corpus was the ideal proceeding for the judicial authority to investigate and find out about the whereabouts of three persons to which this case refers, 44 and e) the Court must clarify, in this case, that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 7(6), 25(1), and 27(2) of the Convention. 94. The Stated said that: a) habeas corpus, as conceived in various legislations, "regulates cases of ARBITRARY DETENTION that Durand Ugarte and Ugarte Rivera could resort to" because motives of their detention have been detailed in the corresponding investigation and had a warrant to proceed to their reclusion, so qualifications of jurisdictional order, in these cases, turned out to be proper for a legal framework; and b) since the relatives of Durand Ugarte and Ugarte Rivera have not exercised the proceedings of alleged death statement or since the beginning of legal succession has not been provided for to exercise the compensation which the legal Peruvian order acknowledges, the internal recourse has not been exhausted, and this determines a lack of competence of the Court. * 44 Neira Alegría et al Case, supra note 12, para. 77.