52 the State in that regard. The State adduced, moreover, that all its actions were designed to clarify the facts and to punish those responsible. 101. In its brief of closing arguments, the Commission claimed that the requirement of an arrest warrant issued by a competent judicial authority is the most effective means of protecting the right to personal liberty, the only exception being an arrest in flagrante delicto. The Commission alleged that, from the evidence submitted in this case, it was proven that the victims were deprived of their liberty without judicial authorization, which in itself violates the fundamental principle established in Article 7 of the American Convention, and that during the proceedings the State neither produced any warrant in justification of the victims’ detention nor showed that the arrests had been made in flagrante delito. 102. The Commission further claimed that the Treasury Police did not record the arrests, prevented the detainees from making any contact with the outside world, did not present them before any competent judicial authority within the six-hour deadline prescribed in the Constitution and denied them access to the remedy of habeas corpus established in Article 7(6) of the Convention. According to the Commission, the clandestine nature of the arrests in this case denied the victims access to the nonderogable judicial guarantees. 103. Regarding the remedy of habeas corpus, the Inter-American Commission pointed out that the victims were denied access to simple and prompt recourse because, in the case of Ana Elizabeth Paniagua-Morales, the writ of habeas corpus filed by her mother yielded no result. It added that a number of witnesses testified that the remedy of habeas corpus was ineffectual at the time the events occurred; that 5,729 writs of habeas corpus had been filed between August 1987 and December 1989 and that 80% of them had not yielded any result. According to the Commission, this claim was amply corroborated by the reports of experts Anderson (supra, para. 67 (m)), Mayora (supra, para. 67 (j)) and Molina (supra, para. 67 (n)) to this Court. 104. In its brief of closing arguments, the State maintained that Mr. Augusto Angárita, Ms. Doris Torres-Gil, Mr. José Antonio Montenegro, Mr. Marco Antonio Montes-Letona and Mr. Oscar Vásquez were arrested by Treasury Police agents and later taken before a justice tribunal. Guatemala further stated that [i]n any event there was room for discussion of the legality or illegality of the arrest but never the kidnapping. The five appeared before the courts. In the case of Mr. Augusto Angárita-Ramírez and Ms. Doris Torres-Gil a full trial was conducted up to the point of their acquittal or conviction, as was the case with Mr. Oscar Vásquez, who had been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for the crime of drug trafficking and selling narcotic substances. Mr. Montenegro had been convicted and Mr. Montes-Letona acquitted. Consequently, the State of Guatemala did not violate those persons’ right to personal liberty. 105. Regarding Ms. Ana Elizabeth Paniagua-Morales, Mr. Julián Salomón GómezAyala, Mr. William Otilio González-Rivera, Mr. Pablo Corado-Barrientos and Mr. Manuel de Jesús González-López, the State claimed that "[i]t played no part […] in those persons kidnappings" and that there was no evidence of any motive for the State to have been involved in the kidnappings and murders described. 106. With regard to the alleged breach of the right of habeas corpus, the State claimed that no special formalities are attached to this remedy and that any court may resolve it; further, the remedy could not be effective in the only case in which it was filed, namely that of Ms. Ana Elizabeth Paniagua-Morales, who had been kidnapped and subsequently murdered by common criminals.