18 [w]ithout question, the State has the right and duty to guarantee its security. It is also indisputable that all societies suffer some deficiencies in their legal orders. However, regardless of the seriousness of certain actions and the culpability of the perpetrators of certain crimes, the power of the State is not unlimited, nor may the State resort to any means to attain its ends. The State is subject to law and morality. Disrespect for human dignity cannot serve as the basis for any State action. (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra 63, para. 154; Godínez Cruz Case, supra 63, para. 162.) 76. Given the circumstances that surrounded the crushing of the riot at the San Juan Bautista Prison; the fact that eight years after the riot occurred there is still no knowledge of the whereabouts of the three persons to whom this case refers, as was acknowledged by the Minister of Foreign Affairs stating that the victims were not among the survivors and that "three of the [non-identified bodies] undoubtedly correspond to those three persons;" and the disproportionate use of force; it may be reasonably concluded that they were arbitrarily deprived of their lives by the Peruvian forces in violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention. 77. This Court likewise considers that the Government also violated the provisions of Articles 7(6) and 27(2) of the American Convention through the application of Supreme Decrees 012-IN and 006-86 JUS of June 2 and 6, 1986, which declared the state of emergency in the Provinces of Lima and El Callao and applied the status of Restricted Military Zone in three correctional facilities, including the San Juan Bautista Prison. In effect, while such decrees did not expressly suspend the habeas corpus remedy or action recognized in Article 7(6) of the Convention, in reality, compliance with both decrees resulted in the ineffectiveness of said instrument of protection, thereby resulting in its suspension to the detriment of the alleged victims. Habeas corpus was the ideal procedure by which the judicial authority could investigate and acquire knowledge as to the whereabouts of the three persons to which this case refers. 78. In the habeas corpus writ filed on June 16, 1986 with the Twenty-First Instructional Judge of Lima, in favor of Víctor Neira-Alegría and Edgar and William Zenteno-Escobar against the President of the Joint Command of the Armed Forces and the Commandant General of the Navy, Irene Neira-Alegría and Julio Zenteno-Camahualí stated that their next of kin had not been found on the occasion of the crushing of the uprising at the San Juan Bautista Prison where they were being held and had not since appeared, possibly because they had been abducted. The petitioners requested that, in the event that the detainees had died, the Judge demand that the military authorities indicate where the bodies could be found and deliver the respective death certificates. 79. The habeas corpus application was declared inadmissible by the Judge in his decision of July 17, 1986, on the grounds that the petitioners did not prove that the prisoners had been abducted, the incidents that occurred at the three prisons (including the San Juan Bautista Prison) were subject to investigation by the military courts and the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation, and that such occurrences were outside the scope of the summary habeas corpus procedure. 80. In accordance with arguments previously pointed out (supra para. 40), on August 1 of that year, the Eleventh Correctional Court of Lima confirmed the original judgment based on the essential argument that the exclusive military tribunal was exercising jurisdiction with respect to the San Juan Bautista Prison, making it impossible for the regular jurisdictional bodies to intervene. On the 25th of the same month of August, the Criminal Section of the Supreme Court declared that, "in consideration of its grounds," the application for annulment made against the appeal decree judgment was inadmissible. Finally, on December 5, 1986, the Constitutional Guarantees Court, to which the petitioners had appealed, declared, that the judgment of the Supreme Court "stood inalterable," since the minimum number of five votes in favor, had not been obtained as required by Peruvian law.