77 detention, and also to protect the individual from torture or other to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment122. 193. As can be inferred from the chapter on domestic proceedings, three petitions for habeas corpus in favor of Bámaca Velásquez were filed in this case, in February 1993 and in June and October 1994 (supra 75, 78 and 80). However, it has been shown that these recourses did not protect the victim from the acts against him committed by State agents. The lack of effectiveness of habeas corpus in Guatemala was also shown by the statements of the President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala, that the “mechanisms that currently exist for habeas corpus procedures are inadequate to carry out an effective investigation under petitions for habeas corpus” (supra 75). 194. This Court has indicated that, as part of the general obligations of States, they have a positive obligation of guarantee with regard to persons under their jurisdiction. This obligation of guarantee presumes taking all necessary measures to remove any impediments which might exist that would prevent individuals from enjoying the rights the Convention guarantees. Any State which tolerates circumstances or conditions that prevent individuals from having recourse to the legal remedies designed to protect their rights is consequently in violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention123. * * * 195. With regard to Jennifer Harbury and the next of kin of Bámaca Velásquez, the Court considers that the State's acceptance of responsibility (supra 186) refers to the violation of the rights of these persons to judicial guarantees and judicial protection and, therefore, this should be stated. 196. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated Articles 8 and 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez and also of Jennifer Harbury, José de León Bámaca Hernández, Egidia Gebia Bámaca Velásquez and Josefina Bámaca Velásquez, XVI RIGHT TO THE TRUTH 122 Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 165; Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 56, para. 103; Caso Cesti Hurtado, supra note 118, para. 121; Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 187; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 164; Blake Case, supra note 52, para. 102; Suárez Rosero Case, supra note 53, paras. 63 and 65; Castillo Páez Case, supra note 52, para. 83; Neira Alegría et al. Case, supra note 102, para. 82; and Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Articles 27(2), 25(1) and 7.6, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 35. 123 Cf. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Articles 46(1), 46(2)a and 46(2)b, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 34 and similarly Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 68; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 71; and Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, supra note 53, para. 93.