77 112. First, it is true that almost 32 years have elapsed since the detention of Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro and the brothers Rodolfo and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba and almost 30 years since their disappearance, together with that of Agustín Goiburú Giménez. Even though there is no evidence that applications for habeas corpus or any other recourse in favor of the victims were attempted at the time of their illegal detention or abduction and subsequent disappearance, the ineffectiveness of this type of action during the first period has been verified (supra para. 61(4)). Consequently it is a fact that, at the time, there was no effective recourse in Paraguay to counter illegal or arbitrary detentions, because one of the characteristics of the governing dictatorship was the exercise of a “permanent state of siege,” renewed by the Executive every 90 days (supra paras. 61(2) and 61(4)). The courts of justice usually refused to receive and process applications for habeas corpus in relation to measures decreed by the Executive under this state of siege, which did not function as a mechanism to deal with exceptional situations, but rather as an instrument at the service of the dictatorship. In other words, the lack of an investigation into the facts was part of the systematic practice of human rights violations and contributed to the impunity of those responsible, so that the judicial protection due to the victims and their next of kin was illusory from the time they were detained and until the end of the dictatorship. 113. During the second period, three criminal proceedings were filed in relation to the facts of the case, and their evolution and results must be examined: (a) In the case of Dr. Agustín Goiburú Giménez, the proceedings were instituted in 1989 by the complaint filed by his wife, Elba Benítez de Goiburú, against those who, at the time of the facts, were the Head of State, the Minister of the Interior, the Head of Military Intelligence, the Head of the Asunción Police, the Head of the Asunción Police Investigations Department, and the Paraguayan Consul in Posadas, Argentina. While the case was being processed, three of the six accused died; accordingly, the criminal proceedings were declared extinguished in their respect. The accused, Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda and Sabino Augusto Montanaro, had been granted asylum in Brazil and Honduras, respectively, so the court of first instance declared them “in contempt of court and willfully disobedient” of court orders until they presented themselves to go on trial” and ordered preventive detention for the purpose of extradition (infra para. 124). No judgment was delivered in these proceedings and the last relevant procedural act was that, on May 29, 2002, the Third Criminal Tribunal (de Liquidación y Sentencia) reviewed the proceedings in order to deliver judgment with regard to the defendant, Francisco Ortiz Téllez, but this has not yet been delivered. Given this situation, the State indicated that, since “the Paraguayan procedural system did not allow a trial in absentia” with regard to the accused, Alfredo Stroessner Matiauda and Sabino Augusto Montanaro, “and bearing in mind the decease of two of the accused in the case, it was at a standstill.” As indicated above, the defendant Stroessner has died recently. (b) In the case of Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, the proceedings were instituted in 1990 when his mother, Ana Arminda Bareiro de Mancuello, filed a criminal complaint against those who, at the time of the facts, were the Head of State, the Minister of the Interior, the Head of the Asunción Police, the Head of the Asunción Police