115 g) if no sentences have yet been handed out in the inquiries into the fires, it is because it is materially impossible for the judge to determine who set the fire. A basic rule of constitutional and criminal law holds that “no one may be forced to testify against himself.” Naturally, none of the witnesses who were former inmates in Cellblock No. 8 has provided any clues to identify the author or authors of the serious crime. Considerations of the Court 238. Article 25 of the Convention reads as follows: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 239. This Court has held that the primary purpose of international protection of human rights is to defend the individual against the arbitrary exercise of State power.195 240. Working from the facts proven in the case sub judice, the Court must determine whether the petition of generic habeas corpus filed on November 12, 1993 on behalf of the inmates in the Center at that time and granted on July 31, 1998, on behalf of 239 inmates in the Center as of that date (supra paragraphs 134.27 and 134.28), met the requirements established in Article 25 of the Convention. 241. The State accepted responsibility for the violation of Article 25(1) of the Convention “owing to the ineffectiveness of the constitutional writ of habeas corpus that had ordered the juveniles transferred from the Center to a proper facility befitting their dignity as human beings.” However, the State acknowledged responsibility only in the case of those persons named in paragraph c) of the petitum in the brief answering the application, “inasmuch as some of those persons may have been incarcerated [in the Center] in 1998, the year Judgment 652 was delivered.” 195 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. , supra note 179, para. 78; Case of the “Five Pensioners”, supra note 55, para. 126; and Case of the Constitutional Court . Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 89.