18 [a]uthority-; the [court] came to the conclusion that it could not grant the request for habeas corpus, […] noting […] that there is no illegal deprivation of liberty to be restored.”80 67. On January 23, 2002, María Cristina and Marta Ramona Martí Méndez filed a preventive habeas corpus in favor of Anuncio Martí Méndez, arguing that he had been missing since Thursday, January 17, 2002 and that he was being held in a police facility.81 That same day, the judge issued an official notice ordering the Ministry of the Interior and the National Police to inform whether Anuncio Martí Méndez was detained.82 68. On January 24, 2002, the Criminal Court decided not to grant the request for habeas corpus. It indicated that “the circumstance[s] presented […] do not fall within the provisions of [the Constitution] because the police report shows that [Anuncio Martí] was not detained in police facilities.” Therefore, it considered that elements of an illegal detention were not met “given the existence of an arrest warrant issued by the [Prosecutor's Office] against him.”83 69. On the other hand, the Inter-American Commission issued precautionary measures on February 6, 2002 to “ensure the life and physical integrity of Juan Francisco Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez.”84 B.2 Criminal investigation 70. On January 24, 2002, the sisters of Anuncio Martí Méndez filed a criminal complaint for the disappearance of Anuncio Martí along with Juan Arrom since January 17. They indicated that, according to press reports, they had been detained that day by police officers and taken to offices of the Investigations Department of the National Police. They indicated that “other versions indicate [...] that he could be detained in a place in Ybycuí, owned by the [at that time] Minister of the Interior.”85 On the morning of January 30, 2002, at the request of the sisters of Anuncio Martí Méndez, the prosecutor went to the house of Martí Méndez to carry out an inspection.86 71. After the discovery of the alleged victims, on January 30, an inspection was carried out at the house where Juan Arrom and Anuncio Martí were found.87 The following day, a raid was carried out on another house in Villa Elisa, where the alleged victims had allegedly been detained for the first few days.88 On February 2, 2002, the prosecutor forwarded the evidence collected in the aforementioned raids for criminal analysis.89 72. On February 1, 2002, Marta Ramona Martí expanded the criminal complaint indicating that Anuncio Martí was also a victim of torture, for which she requested that various procedures be carried out and attached the medical report done on January 30.90 Cf. Final Judgment No. 4 of January 23, 2002 (evidence file, f. 507). Cf. Final Judgment No. 1 of January 24, 2002 (evidence file, f. 509). 82 Interlocutory order No. 65 of January 23, 2002 (evidence file, f. 1157). 83 Cf. Final Judgment No. 1 of January 24, 2002 (evidence file, f. 510). 84 Cf. Note from the Inter-American Commission of February 6, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 827 and 828). 85 Cf. Report of disappearance of Anuncio Martí presented on January 24, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 4700 to 4703); Note from the ABC newspaper, entitled “Martí's sisters appeal to the prosecution”, dated January 25, 2002 (evidence file, f. 170), and Note from the La Nación newspaper, entitled “Disappearance complaint is part of the plan”, dated 25 January 2002 (evidence file, f. 176). 86 Cf. Incorporation act of January 30, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 4707 to 4708). 87 Cf. Inspection records of January 30, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 5370 to 5373); Criminal report of January 29, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 7269 to 7276), and Proceedings record of February 13, 2002, of evidence collected on January 30 and 31, 2002 (evidence file, f. 7295). 88 Cf. Record of search of January 31, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 4713 to 4714), and Report of the search procedure of January 31, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 4728 and 4729). 89 Cf. Criminal Prosecutor's Note No. 25 of February 2, 2002 (evidence file, f. 4733). 90 Expansion of the complaint of February 1, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 4716 and 4717), and Medical report of January 30, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 4718 and 4719). 80 81