20 83. Article 25 is closely linked to the general obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, in that it assigns duties of protection to the States Parties through their domestic legislation. The purpose of habeas corpus is not only to guarantee personal liberty and humane treatment, but also to prevent disappearance or failure to determine the place of detention, and, ultimately, to ensure the right to life. 84. It having been proven, as stated above (supra, para. 71), that Mr. Castillo-Páez was detained by members of the Peruvian police force and that, consequently, he was in the custody of the police, who hid him so that he would not be located, the Court finds that the ineffectiveness of the remedy of habeas corpus is imputable to the State and constitutes a violation of Article 25 of the Convention, in connection with Article 1(1). XIV 85. In its final arguments the Inter-American Commission further invoked two alleged violations. The first refers to Article 17 of the Convention concerning protection of the family, in that, according to the Commission, Mr. Castillo-Páez' family disintegrated as a result of his disappearance. Secondly, the Commission considers that there has been a violation of the right to truth and information, in the light of the State's lack of interest in investigating the events that gave rise to this case. It adduces that argument without citing any specific provision of the Convention, while pointing out that this right has been recognized by several international organizations. 86. Regardless of the fact that these arguments were invoked in its final pleadings and that they were not challenged by the State, it should be noted that the former refers to a consequence of the forced disappearance of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez, which this Court deems to have been proven, in violation of the American Convention, with all its legal consequences. The second argument refers to the formulation of a right that does not exist in the American Convention, although it may correspond to a concept that is being developed in doctrine and case law, which has already been disposed of in this Case through the Court's decision to establish Peru's obligation to investigate the events that produced the violations of the American Convention (infra, para. 90). XV 87. The Court now examines the Commission's arguments that Peru should compensate the victim's attorney, on the ground that the attack of which he was the victim (supra, para. 30.e.) occurred because of his legal defense of Mr. Castillo-Páez and his relatives. 88. In this regard, the Court indicated above (supra, para. 78) that no details have been provided to show that the attack which severely injured attorney Zúñiga-Paz took place specifically because of his legal assistance to the victim and his relatives. Furthermore, let it be said that the Commission did not name Mr. Zúñiga-Paz as a victim. The reparation which the Commission is seeking was not included in its recommendations to Peru in its Report 19/94 of September 26, 1994, which is the antecedent to this matter, the only victim indicated in that report being Mr. Castillo-Páez, and the only reparations sought were for violations against his person. 89. Nor does attorney Zúñiga-Paz appear as a victim in the petition nor the corresponding reparation; although in the body of the text and in the petition it is stated that the State should make reparation for the damage suffered by the attorney; the Court cannot therefore examine this request in the merits of this case.