59 jurisdiction and, like the authorities of that jurisdiction, settled for the answer received from the authorities regarding the inexistence of records or information relating to operations or restriction to the liberty of the then children, without requesting an explanation about the mechanisms used by the authorities to reach that conclusion. Furthermore, in the case of the Mejía Ramírez sisters, the individuals indicated by the appellant were not notified, because they had “retired from military service” and the Commanding Officer of the Atlacatl Battalion had been demobilized. 163. The Court assesses that the habeas corpus proceedings that were processed and decided could have elucidated that a situation harmful to the personal liberty of the victims had been constituted, because they “recognized the constitutional violation of the right to physical liberty [of the said persons].” However, the proceedings were ineffective to discover the whereabouts of Ana Julia Mejía Ramírez, Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, Gregoria Herminia Contreras, Julia Inés Contreras, Serapio Cristian Contreras and José Rubén Rivera Rivera because the corresponding procedural measures were not carried out diligently, taking into account the broad powers of the executing judge and the obligation of the State authorities to provide the information requested; hence, the protection required by means of those measures was illusory. Consequently, in application of the iuria novit curia principle, the Court finds that the State violated Article 7(6) of the American Convention to the detriment of the Mejía Ramírez, Contreras and Rivera children and of their next of kin. 164. The representatives also alleged the violation of Article 25(2) of the Convention,263 in the cases of José Rubén Rivera and the Mejía Ramírez sisters, because the State did “not take any measure to implement the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice, as regards the opening of an investigation.” They also indicated that, in none of the cases, “the Constitutional Chamber had used its powers of investigation satisfactorily.” In addition, even though that chamber had ordered the Prosecutor to initiate an investigation, the order was carried out only in the Contreras case, five years after it had been issued. The Court observes that, when the habeas corpus writs were issued, two judicial investigations and an investigation by the Public Prosecution Service had already been opened into the disappearance of José Rubén Rivera, the Contreras siblings, and the Mejía Ramírez sisters, respectively, so that, over and above opening a new investigation, it was the responsibility of the Prosecutor General’s Office to seriously, exhaustively and diligently pursue the investigations opened; the analysis of this is subsumed in the previous section. E. Access to information contained in military archives 165. The Commission indicated that, on several occasions during the investigations into the three cases, military institutions had been asked to provide information on the operations and the participants, without receiving an answer, or an incomplete response, or “they insist that the information does not exist,” and the authorities in charge of the investigation do not have other means to obtain the information, such as “inspecting military facilities or archives of the Ministry of Defense.” Consequently, the Commission asked that the State be ordered to make all institutional, legal, administrative and other efforts to remove the obstacles impeding access to the information recorded in military archives. 263 Article 25(2) of the Convention stipulates: “[t]he 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.