31 been investigated or detained for the acts and that those involved had not been interrogated by the State. Moreover, in response to Judge ad hoc NovalesAguirre, Mr. Richard R. Blake, Jr., declared that they had never met with or talked to a representative of the Judiciary about this case, because the State alleged that the area in question was controlled by the army and that it was better to deal directly with the military officials. 101. Article 25(1) of the Convention provides that everyone has the right to simple, prompt and effective recourse to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his or her 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. 102. The Court has stated out that this provision is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society in the terms of the Convention. 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 (Castillo Páez Case, supra 50, paras. 82 and 83; Suárez Rosero Case, Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 65). 103. Moreover, that article, which embodies the duty of the State to provide effective internal remedies, is an important means of determining the whereabouts of persons deprived of their liberty and of preventing forced disappearance in any circumstances (United Nations Declaration on the Protection of All Persons Against Enforced Disappearance, Article 9). 104. However, this Court considers that in the instant case, as Mr. Richard R. Blake, Jr., explicitly acknowledged, Mr. Nicholas Blake's relatives did not initiate any judicial action, such as the remedy of habeas corpus, to establish the disappearance and secure, if possible, Mr. Nicholas Blake's freedom. That being the case, this Tribunal cannot rule that the victim's relatives were deprived of the judicial protection referred to in this provision, because the requirement necessary for the application of Article 25 of the Convention was not met. XIV CONCERNING ARTICLES 13 AND 22 105. The Commission alleged the violation, to the detriment of Mr. Nicholas Blake, of the rights enshrined in Articles 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) and 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) of the Convention. The Court deems the alleged violations to be an indirect consequence of Mr. Nicholas Blake's proven disappearance and death, in accordance with the criterion established in previous cases (Castillo Páez Case, supra 50, para. 86; Suárez Rosero Case, supra 102, para. 102). The Court further considers the reasons adduced for the existence of the violations denounced to be unfounded.