56 investigation of the disappearance of Mr. Chitay Nech. Such facts are converted into other means to perpetuate the impunity of the present case and impede that the truth of what happened. 202. In this sense, this Tribunal has established that for the State to comply with that provided in Article 25 of the Convention, it is not enough that the remedies are foreseen by the Constitution or the law or that they are formally admissible, but rather that they be effective in the terms of such rule.225 Said effectiveness presupposes that, in addition to the existence of formal remedies, there be results or answers to the violations of rights,226 which implies that the remedy be suitable to combat the violation and that its application be made effective by competent authorities.227 Therefore, those remedies that, for the general conditions of the country or for the particular circumstances of a case give illusory results, cannot be considered effective.228 203. In this regard, the remedy of habeas corpus represents the suitable means to guarantee liberty, control the respect for life and integrity of a person, and impede the disappearance or the indetermination of the place of detention.229 204. In relation to the habeas corpus remedy raised by Pedro Chitay,230 the Court notes that despite the gravity of the alleged facts and the context in which they occurred, the State authorities indicated only that they did not rely upon information about Florencio Chitay, which impeded the carrying out of the necessary investigations to locate the whereabouts of the alleged victim, that until today remain unknown. The State did not demonstrate that the State authorities took all the steps within their reach to determine his whereabouts. The State, having knowledge of the facts, should have initiated without delay an investigation ex oficio to identify, prosecute, and eventually punish those responsible, as well as to locate the whereabouts of the alleged victim, but to the contrary, the habeas corpus remedy was declared inadmissible, which demonstrates the denial of justice. 225 Cf. Case Ximenes Lopes V. Brasil. Preliminary Exception. Judgment of 30 of November of 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 4; Case Usón Ramirez V. Venezuela, supra note 18, para 129, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 296. 226 Cf. Case Tribunal Constitucional V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 31 of January of 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 90; Case Acevedo Buendía et. al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) V. Perú. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 1 of July of 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 69; Case Bayarri V. Argentina. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 30 of October of 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 102, and Case Usón Ramirez V. Venezuela, supra note 18, para. 129. 227 Cf. Case Acosta Calderón V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 24 of June of 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 93; Case Claude Reyes et. al. V. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 19 of November of 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 131, and Case Usón Ramírez V. Venezuela, supra note 18, para. 129. 228 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in the State of Emergency ( Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 del 6 of October of 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) V. Perú, supra note 226, para. 69; Case Reverón Trujillo V. Venezuela, supra note 39, para. 61, and Case Usón Ramírez V. Venezuela, supra note 18, para. 129. 229 Cf. Case Neira Alegría et. al. V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of 19 of January of 1995. Series C. No. 20, para. 82; Case Cantoral Benavides V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of 18 of August of 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 165, and Case Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala, supra note 50, para 192. See also, the Habeaus Corpus under suspensión of guarantees (Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC8/87 del 30 of January of 1987. Series A No. 8, para. 35 230 Article 88 of Decree 1-86 of the Amparo Law, Personal Exhibition and Constitutionality, establishes that the remedy for personal exhibition orders the corresponding authorities to present the offender, accompained by the origional or a copy of the procederes or background that detailas a report on the facts of the detention.