143. The Court observes that, in this case, the representatives filed three applications for habeas corpus in favor of Mr. García in 1997. The information provided to the Court reveals that, in response to these remedies, the judicial authorities requested information from several State security agencies, such as the Ministry of Defense, the General Directorate of the National Police, and the Treasury Police, and also carried out verifications and searches in a detention center and at the Army’s Headquarters. All these measures were unsuccessful (supra para 74). The Court recalls that one of the characteristic features of forced disappearance is precisely “the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned” (supra para 97), so that the mere formal verification of the official detainee records, as occurred in this case, or the acceptances as true of the denial of the detention by those presumably responsible, without an objective, impartial and independent verification, is neither reasonable nor diligent and does not constitute an effective remedy. Furthermore, the context in which the alleged detention was carried out and its characteristics must also be taken into account, so that merely calling out the name of the detainee in a randomly-chosen detention center, more than 10 years after the date on which the detention allegedly occurred, is not an effective measure. 221 When investigating a presumed forced disappearance, the State authorities must take into account the characteristic elements of this type of crime, 222 as well as the context in which the facts occurred and their characteristics. 144. The Court also observes that Guatemalan law provides for a special investigation procedure “if an application for habeas corpus has been filed, without finding the person in whose favor it was requested, and there are sufficient grounds to suppose that he or she has been arrested or held illegally” (supra footnote 213), which was precisely what happened in this case. However, the Court notes that this procedure was not effective either. Indeed, during the procedure, the Public Prosecution Service was called on to investigate Mr. García’s detention and, once again, State authorities failed to implement appropriate actions or proceedings to ensure the effectiveness of the formally established remedies. In this regard, the information provided indicates that the Public Prosecution Service merely interviewed Mr. García’s mother and requested information from the National Police, which denied having any information for 1984 and, in particular, in relation to a BROE operation on the day of Edgar Fernando García’s arrest 223 (supra paras. 75 and 76). Subsequently, this special investigation procedure was entrusted to the Ombudsman’s Office, which was unable to obtain results until the chance discovery of the Historical Archive of the Police in 2005. 145. The Court emphasizes that, in the instant case, the ineffectiveness of the way in which the application for habeas corpus and the special investigation procedure were processed is particularly evident, owing to the discovery of the Diario Militar and the 221 According to the record on the implementation of the said applications for habeas corpus by the judge responsible for the case, the respective judge visited the Men’s Pre-Trial Detention Center in Zone 18 and the Army Headquarters on December 2, 1997, where he verified the “Register of incoming and outgoing detainees” and the “Register of those arrested,” respectively, and “proceeded to walk round [the detention centers] and call out for Edgar Fernando García […] without obtaining an answer to this appeal; [hence, the measures were] unsuccessful.” Record of the First Criminal Peace Court of December 2, 1997 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folios 601 and 602). 222 Cf. Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 161. 223 In the record of the public hearing held on April 8, 1999, during the special investigation procedure, the Public Prosecution Service reported that it had requested information about the individuals who formed part of the BROE operation on the day of Mr. García’s arrest, to which the National Police advised “that they had proceeded to look for the files for 1984, without having found them.” Record of the hearings held on April 8, 1999, in the special investigation procedure before the Supreme Court of Justice (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome II, annex 31, folio 508). 51