72 that, due to the general conditions of the country or even due to the specific circumstances of a given case, are illusory, cannot be deemed effective.”137 122. In this regard, among the indispensable guarantees of fair trial, habeas corpus is the suitable means to ensure liberty, to control respect for life and the right to humane treatment, and to impede their disappearance or non-determination of their place of detention, as well as to protect the individual against torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.138 As follows from the proven facts, on July 20, 1992 a habeas corpus remedy was filed by telegram139 to establish the whereabouts of Juan Humberto Sánchez (supra 70.18). It has been proven that the serving judge took over a week, from July 20 to 28, 1992, to report to the Appelate Court of Comayagua that the commander of the Tenth Battalion had informed him that Juan Humberto Sánchez was not detained at that military detachment post, even though the body had been found on the banks of the Río Negro on July 21, 1992 (supra 70.18 and 70.19). 123. Ineffectiveness of the habeas corpus remedy in Honduras was proven (supra 70.18, 70.19 and 70.20) by the various testimonial and documentary evidence included in the file, especially the statements of Leo Valladares Lanza, who at the time was the Human Rights Commissioner and who stated that because the Judiciary was influenced by the military forces, habeas corpus remedies were usually ineffective.140 124. With respect to fair trial or procedural guarantees, the Court has established that for true guarantees of fair trial to exist in a proceeding, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention, it is necessary to observe all the requirements that “are designed to protect, to ensure or to assert the entitlement to a right or the exercise thereof,”141 in other words, “the prerequisites necessary to ensure the adequate protection of those persons whose rights or obligations are pending judicial determination.”142 125. As this Court pointed out above (supra 85), Juan Humberto Sánchez was unable to file any remedy to demonstrate the illegality of his detention, to find out the reasons for said detention, to appoint a legal representative, or to exercise his right to defense, as his detention was illegal and arbitrary, since he was captured 137 Cf. “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 3, para. 126; Las Palmeras Case, supra note 129, para. 58; and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 3, paras. 113-114. 138 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 192; Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 103, para. 165; and Durand and Ugarte Case, supra note 104, para. 103. 139 140 Pursuant to Honduran legislation. Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 33, paras. 66 and 68. 141 Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 147; and El Hábeas Corpus bajo suspensión de garantías (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8; para. 25. 142 Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 147; The right to information on consular assistance in the framework of guarantees of the due process of law. Advisory Opinion OC16/99 of October 1, 1999. Series A No. 16, para. 118; and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 28.