70 that the principle of effectiveness (effet utile) cuts across the protection due to all the rights recognized in the Convention, the Court considers, as it has on other occasions, 260 that in application of the iura novit curia principle - which is repeatedly validated by international case law inasmuch as the judge has the authority, and even the obligation, to apply the pertinent legal provisions in a case, even when it is not expressly invoked by the parties - 261 it is appropriate to assess the arguments related to the effectiveness of the habeas corpus actions in relation to the aforementioned provision, and not in relation to Article 25 of the Convention, as argued by the representatives and the Commission. 262 232. The Court has considered that the habeas corpus remedy, or the presentation of the person, is the ideal measure to ensure liberty, monitor respect for life and personal integrity, and prevent an individual’s disappearance or uncertainty about his place of detention. 263 In this regard, the Court’s case law has established that these remedies should not only exist formally in law, but should also be effective. 264 The Court has also specified that to be effective, the habeas corpus remedy must fulfill the objective of obtaining, without delay, a decision on the lawfulness of the arrest or the detention. 265 233. In the instant case, on July 22, 1991, that is, four days after Alejandro Huamaní filed the writ of habeas corpus, the Examining Magistrate’s Court of Huancavelica issued a decision declaring the petition inadmissible since, “from the inquiries made and the statements received from the departments of the Security Police, General Police, Technical Police and from the Military Base and the Political-Military Command, the detention of the citizen Elihoref Huamaní Vergara has not been proven to have actually occurred, and therefore the complaint has no factual basis.” 266 234. In this regard, the Court recalls that one of the characteristic elements of forced disappearance is “the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned.” 267 Thus, the mere formal verification of the official detainee records, as occurred in this case, or the acceptance as true of the denial of the detention by those presumably responsible, without an objective, impartial and independent verification, is neither reasonable nor diligent and does not constitute an effective remedy. 268 In this case, the aforementioned decision does not include the “verification” that would have been carried out by the Examining Magistrate’s Court of Huancavelica, beyond the statements received from members of the army and the police, in order to confirm that the alleged detention took place. Furthermore, the Court notes that the Examining Magistrate who rejected the petition had been present during the removal of the bodies in the “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón” mine four days earlier, on July 18, 1991. 269 Although this removal procedure was carried out on the basis of the complaint filed by the “president and prosecutor of the community of Santa Bárbara before the Public Prosecutor’s Office” which referred only to 14 victims, without mentioning Elihoref Huamaní Vergara, it is also Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 77, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 162. 261 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 163, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 162. 262 Cf. Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 162. 263 Cf. Habeas Corpus under Suspension of Guarantees (arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87, supra, para. 35, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 162. 264 Cf. Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, supra, para. 129, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 162. 265 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 97, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru, supra, para. 281. 266 Cf. Order of the Examining Magistrate’s Court of Huancavelica of July 22, 1991 on the habeas corpus action filed on July 18, 1991 (evidence file, folio 85). 267 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, para. 97, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 115 268 Cf. Case of García and Family Members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 143. 269 Cf. Order of the Examining Magistrate’s Court of Huancavelica of July 22, 1991, regarding the habeas corpus action filed on July 18, 1991 (evidence file, folio 85), and Official letter No. 0462-91-MP-FPM-HVCA of July 23, 1991, submitted by the Huancavelica Mixed Provincial Prosecutor’s Office to the Senior Public Prosecutor of Huancavelica (evidence file, folio 56). 260