148. In other words, a requirement for a habeas corpus action was knowledge of the place where the person was detained so as to bring that person before the Mayor or President of the Council in whose jurisdiction the detainee was located. As has been shown, the family members and petitioners, who were in Peru, were not informed by the Ecuadorian authorities of the location where Mr. Vásquez Durand was being held. From witnesses, they had only heard that he had been arrested in Huaquillas, that he had been transferred to different places in Ecuador, and that in June 1995 he had been seen in the Teniente Ortiz military barracks. 149. In the instant case, it is important to underscore the context of impunity in which the military acted at the time of the events. The Truth Commission determined that "During the administration of Durán Ballén, the repression of social protest was fiercer and the security forces were given carte blanche in operations against criminals (...) Durán Ballén resorted to the National Security Law153 and decreed states of emergency to handle the armed conflict with Peru." He also issued a decree exempting members of the security forces from any criminal liability for actions taken during the state of emergency.154 150. In this regard, according to the Ecuadorian Truth Commission most human rights violations committed by police or military personnel had not been punished. Nor had their perpetrators been brought to trial and sentenced. It pointed out that impunity had been possible because of the practice of maintaining special jurisdictions that had allowed policemen and military personnel to be tried in their own courts, in which, generally speaking, they were acquitted. In addition, it pointed to an "esprit de corps," which had been the main obstacle to the truth being revealed and justice done."155 151. In this regard, in its country report on Ecuador, the IACHR established the following: A principal issue raised before the Commission during its visit concerned the practice of trying members of the police and armed forces accused of human rights violations under their respective instances of special jurisdiction rather than the ordinary civilian tribunals. Both institutions are essentially responsible for their own discipline, as special police and military courts are vested with the jurisdiction to try their members in closed sessions. The Commission was informed that verdicts, when reached, are not made public. Civilian authorities have the power to direct these cases to courts of ordinary jurisdiction, but such instances have been rare.156 152. In July 1995, with respect to impunity in Ecuador, Amnesty International also claimed that the judicial authorities failed to elucidate human rights offenses,. It stated that "members of the Ecuadorian security forces accused of human rights violations were almost never brought to trial" and added: The impunity surrounding human rights cases has become institutionalized by a judicial system that human rights attorneys and defenders consider seriously ineffective. 153 Different governments used the National Security law issued by the military dictatorship to maintain what they called order and peace in the Republic. This Law, issued in a Cold War context, and with strongly anti-Communist content, remained in force throughout the 1988-2007 period. Appendix 37. Report of the Truth Commission of Ecuador. 2007. Executive Summary. Introduction, p. 40. 154 Appendix 37. Report of the Truth Commission of Ecuador. 2007. Executive Summary. Introduction, p. 39. 155 Appendix 37. Report of the Truth Commission of Ecuador. 2007. Executive Summary. Introduction, p. 43. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.96, Doc. 10 rev. 1, April 24, 1997. Chapter II, Section on "The National Police and the Armed Forces." 156 35