12 whereabouts, suffered a severe depression, characterized by significant changes in some of her body’s basic functions, loss of interest in daily activities and interpersonal relations, feelings of guilt and extreme anger, and incapability to concentrate and make decisions. She has not been able to go through with her mourning appropriately. In all the cases under study, the effects observed in all family members were extreme pain, impotence, defenselessness, anger, fear, and distrust. All of them showed they felt unprotected and vulnerable, resulting from the evidence that the individuals and institutions with the social function of protecting were precisely the ones that became victimizers. The life projects of the victim’s next of kin have been severely impaired, for which reason is necessary to have the cases judicially elucidated, as well as those responsible punished, for the family to start healing and overcoming their mourning process. 2. Jesús María Casal-Hernández, attorney at law The expert witness referred to the evolution of habeas corpus in the Constitution of Venezuela, as well as its scope of application and characteristics, the parameters of which are established in the Ley Orgánica de Amparo sobre Derechos y Garantías Constitucionales (Amparo (remedy for the protection of constitutional rights) of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees Act) of 1988, which includes a specific title dealing with the “amparo (remedy for the protection of constitutional rights) of personal liberty and security.” This Act clearly establishes the object guaranteed by this special remedy: the right to personal liberty and security. Venezuelan legislation establishes that habeas corpus entails the obligation to immediately place the detainees under the custody of a competent Court, whereby it is assumed that they will be taken before judicial authorities. This requirement derives from International Law on Human Rights, which includes Advisory Opinion Number Eight the Inter-American Court addressing the application of said remedy in emergency situations, and in which the importance of habeas corpus as a useful instrument for judicial verification of a detainee’s condition by bringing him or her before a judge is deemed essential. The crime of forced disappearance of persons is not more than an aggravated or prolonged deprivation of liberty, in which it is not possible to obtain official information about the whereabouts of the affected person. Cases of disappearance are not clearly covered by the legislation in force, but they may be disposed of by means of an appropriate constitutional construction, as it has been done by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. In this case, the Courts should have granted habeas corpus with respect to all the persons who had been subject to forced disappearance, should have conducted an investigation to find out the whereabouts of the affected individuals, so as to order the detainees to be immediately brought before the Court, to be examined physically, and should have ordered their release and any other pertinent action. By rejecting said legal remedy straight away, the effective and timely protection, provided for by the Constitution, was denied.