62 relatives have received no compensation or indemnity and, in the case of Mr. Erik Leonardo Chinchilla, no judicial process has been initiated. 160. The Commission also claimed that the general circumstances which prevailed in Guatemala rendered judicial remedies ineffective inasmuch as the investigation connected with the "white van case" took place in an atmosphere of terror and harrassment substantiated by the mere fact that the judge in the case was kidnapped. According to the Commission, the statements and reports of Ms. Jean-Marie Simon (supra, para. 67 (g)), Mr. Ken Anderson (supra, para. 67 (m)) and Ms. Olga Molina (supra, para. 67 (n)) contain sufficient evidence to conclude that Judge Trejo-Duque and the witnesses in the case were frightened, as was also evident from their statements to this Court. 161. In its brief of final arguments, the State said that all the actions of the then judge in the case were lawful; that [p]erhaps Judge Trejo understood that the action of the Treasury Police in the case of Mr. Angárita, Ms. Torres-Gil, Mr. Montenegro, Mr. Vásquez and Mr. Montes-Letona accorded with the law. He perhaps saw that they had been taken before a court, and had perhaps also understood that the rest could be the work of criminals, drug traffickers, terrorism or any other type of crime: in other words, what occurred to Ms. Paniagua, Mr. Gómez-Ayala, Mr. González-Rivera, Mr. Barrientos, Mr. González-López, kidnapped, murdered, injured and perhaps tortured and Erick (sic) Leonardo Chinchilla, shot dead. Perhaps Judge Trejo understood all that […]. 162. The State also affirmed that it never acquiesced in the deprivation of the victims’ liberty or the murders of some of them; that those cases were duly investigated and no pressure of any kind was brought to bear on the judges that heard the case. 163. Article 25 of the American Convention provides that 1. Every person 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. 164. This Court has declared that the effectiveness of habeas corpus does not depend merely on its formal existence (Castillo Páez Case, supra 72, paras. 82 and 83; Suárez Rosero Case, supra 71, para. 63). Habeas corpus must effectively protect persons from acts that violate their fundamental rights "even though that violation is committed by persons acting in exercise of their official functions" (Article 25(1) of the American Convention). The Court further pointed out that the provision of Article 25 constitutes one of the basic pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society in the sense of the Convention. Article 25 is closely linked to the general obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, in assigning protective functions to the domestic law of States Parties. The purpose of habeas corpus is not only to ensure respect for the right to personal liberty and physical integrity, but also to prevent the person’s disappearance or