66 111. In cases concerning deprivation of liberty, such as the instant case, the habeas corpus remedy constituted, among indispensable judicial guarantees, the most suitable means to ensure freedom, oversee the respect for life and personal integrity and avoid disappearances or lack of information about detention centers, as well as to protect the individual from torture or other forms of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment. 97 However, within the context described above, the courts rejected the actions. In two of them, they simply accepted the justifications or silence of military authorities, who alleged a state of emergency or reasons of "national security" to withhold information (supra para. 80(20)). In this regard, the Court has held that in cases of human rights violations, the State authorities cannot resort to mechanisms such as official secret or confidentiality of the information, or reasons of public interest or national security, to refuse to supply the information required by the judicial or administrative authorities in charge of the ongoing investigation or proceeding. Likewise, when a punishable fact is being investigated, the decision to define the information as secret and to refuse to submit it can never depend exclusively on a State body whose members are deemed responsible for committing the illegal act. “It is not, therefore, a matter of denying that the Government must continue to safeguard official secrets, but of stating that in such a paramount issue its actions must be subject to control by other branches of the State or by a body that ensures respect for the principle of the division or powers...” Thus, what is incompatible with the Rule of Law and effective judicial protection “is not that there are secrets, but rather that these secrets are outside legal control, that is to say, that the authority has areas in which it is not responsible because they are not juridically regulated and are therefore outside any control system…”98 112. In the instant case, even though they were filed and decided, the petitions for habeas corpus did not lead to serious and independent investigations, so that the protection due under them proved illusory. In this sense, the representatives alleged that the State violated Article 7(6) of the Convention to the detriment of both the victims and their next of kin. The Court considers that, according to the text of the article, "the right to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention” belongs to the "person deprived of his liberty" and not to his next of kin, although both "the interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies.” Therefore, in accordance with its jurisprudence,99 the State is responsible, in this respect, for violating Article 7(6) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 10 executed or missing victims. 113. As regards the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, acknowledged by the State, it is clear that, in light of the circumstances in which they were detained and taken to an indefinite place before being executed or vanished, the alleged victims were placed in a situation of vulnerability and lack of protection which affected their physical, mental and moral integrity. Certainly, there is no evidence of the specific acts to which these people were submitted before being executed or vanished. Nevertheless, the modus operandi pertaining to the facts of the instant case within the context of that kind of systematic practice (supra paras. 80(1) to 80(8)) together with the failure to investigate (supra paras. 97 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 79; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 83, para. 97, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 122. 98 99 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paras. 180 and 181. Cf. Case of Servellón-García et al., supra note 1, paras. 140 and 155; Case of López-Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 99, and Case of Blanco-Romero et al. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 66.