Palma Mendoza. The guilty parties presented an appeal to the court of cassation, which was denied by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 26, 2002.86 B. Legal considerations 1. Right to judicial protection with regards to habeas corpus (Article 25 in relationship to Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention) 90. In this case, the petitioners maintain that, once the habeas corpus petition was filed for Mr. Palma, all of the state agencies should have been activated in order to find him in military, police, or penitentiary establishments. They also state that this recourse was not effective because it did not lead to the location of Mr. Palma, and they argue that Articles 7(6) and 25 of the Convention have been violated. The Ecuadorian State did not make a statement about this argument. 91. Article 7.6 of the American Convention establishes that: Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. 92. Article 25 of the Convention establishes that: 1. Everyone 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. 93. For its part, Article 2 establishes: Article 2. Domestic Legal Effects Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 94. The IACHR observes that Article 7 of the American Convention refers to the deprivation of liberty carried out by or with the acquiescence of the State. In this case, the lack of investigation with respect to the allegations about the possible participation of agents of the Armed Forces of Ecuador as well as the confession of the one of the direct perpetrators of the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Palma—referring to the crime as being motivated by personal conflicts—mean that sufficient elements do not exist to determine possible state responsibility in Mr. Palma’s kidnapping. Because of this, the IACHR will not make a statement 86 Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, Second Criminal Chamber, Quito, June 26, 2002. Appendix to the petitioners’ communication of November 17, 2005.