54 175. For its part, Article 7(6) provides that: [...] Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. 176. Argument of the Commission: “In the instant case, Peru is responsible for violation of the rights recognized in [Article] 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights”, given the particularly egregious abridgement of the defendants’ guarantees, which left them defenseless. 177. Arguments of the State: Under law No. 26,248, persons being detained and/or prosecuted for the crime of terrorism or treason could and still can file a petition seeking the respective writ of habeas corpus under the conditions stipulated in Article 12 of Law No. 23,506 - Habeas Corpus and Amparo Act, or an action of amparo with respect to the right of nationality and the guarantees of due process provided for in subparagraphs 15, 16 and 24 of Article 24 of that law. 178. The Commission argued violation of articles 7 and 25 in its final pleading, not in the original application. However, by virtue of the general principle of iura novit curia, this does not prevent the Court from examining the allegation during the proceedings on the merits of the case.97 179. Law No. 23,506 (Habeas Corpus and Amparo Act) was amended by Article 16.a of Decree-Law No. 25,398, promulgated on February 6, 1992, and published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on February 9 of that year. This 1992 decree provided that the writ of habeas corpus was impermissible when “petitioner’s case is in its examining phase or when petitioner is on trial for the very facts against which remedy is being sought.” 180. The Court understands that Article 6 of Decree-Law No. 25,659 of September 2, 1992, which regulates the crime of treason and was in force at the time the alleged victims were detained and the proceedings against them instituted, denied persons suspected of terrorism or treason the right to bring actions seeking judicial guarantees. That article reads as follows: Article 6.-During the preliminary proceedings and trial of those detained for, suspected of or on trial for the crime of terrorism classified in Decree Law No. 25,475, remedies 97. Cf. Blake Case, supra note 4, para. 112.