44 194. The Commission is reminded that the petition of habeas corpus is a fundamental right intimately linked to the right to personal liberty. The Court has written that: ... the judicial guarantees essential for the protection of the human rights not subject to derogation, according to Article 27(2) of the Convention, are those to which the Convention expressly refers in Articles 7(6) and 25(1), considered within the framework and the principles of Article 8, and also those necessary to the preservation of the rule of law, even during the state of exception that results from the suspension 152 of guarantees. 195. In the instant case, the petitioner is alleging that he did not file a petition of habeas corpus because as a state of emergency had been declared in the city of Huánuco, it was under the control of the MilitaryPolitical Command, whose highest-ranking official was Colonel Negrón; hence, the city’s organs of justice and control were subordinate to him. Therefore, a petition of habeas corpus would have been ineffective. The petitioner further alleges that under Article 38 of Law 23506, consistent with Article 137(1) of the Constitution, petitions of habeas corpus were out of order in areas declared under a state of emergency, which made any legal action futile. 196. The State, for its part, alleges that under Article 200 of the 1993 Constitution, exercise of petitions of habeas corpus and amparo is not suspended during enforcement of the states of exception referred to in Article 137(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, the State alleges that Mr. Galindo could have filed a petition of amparo but did not. 197. The Commission notes that as the State points out, under Article 200 of Peru’s 1993 153 Constitution, the petition of habeas corpus is a constitutional guarantee that “is admissible vis-à-vis any action or omission on the part of any authority, civil servant or individual who violates or threatens individual liberty or the related constitutional rights.” Exercise of the petition of habeas corpus cannot be restricted under Article 137(1) of the Constitution. The Commission notes also that under Law No. 26248, published on November 25, 1993, petitions of habeas corpus were again permissible in cases involving crimes of terrorism and treason. The only exceptions are petitions “based on the same facts or causes of action that are the subject of a proceeding 154 already underway or resolved.” . Therefore, at the time of the events in this case, a petition of habeas corpus was allowable under the law. 198. Nevertheless, as the Court observed in the Case of Castillo Petruzzi v. Peru, Law No. 26248 (which allowed the petition of habeas corpus in cases involving crimes of terrorism and treason effective November 25, 1993), … did nothing to improve the juridical situation of the accused, since its Article 6.4 stipulated that “writs of habeas corpus based on the same facts or grounds [that are] the subject of a proceeding that is under way, 155 or a proceeding that is already resolved, are not admissible.” 152 I/A Court H.R., Judicial guarantees in states of emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, paragraph 38. 153 Article 200 of the 1993 Constitution provides that: “[…] Exercise of the petition of habeas corpus and the petition of Amparo is not suspended during the enforcement of the states of emergency referred to in Article 137 of the Constitution. When petitions of this nature are filed with regard to restricted or suspended rights, the corresponding jurisdictional body examines the reasonability and proportionality of the restriction. The judge is not entitled to challenge the declaration of a state of emergency or a state of siege.” 154 Article 6 of Decree Law 25659, which governs petitions of habeas corpus for crimes of this type, was amended by Law 26248, published November 25, 1993: “Article 6.- The petition of Habeas Corpus is proper procedure under the conditions stipulated in Article 12 of Law No. 23506, on behalf of persons detained, suspected of or prosecuted for the crimes of terrorism and treason. The following procedural rules must be observed: 1) the Criminal Judge Specializing in Terrorism is competent to hear the petition of habeas corpus; in the absence of such a judge, a regular criminal judge may also hear the petition (…) 4) petitions of habeas corpus based on the same facts and causes of action that are the subject of a proceeding already in progress or resolved shall not be admissible” 155 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paragraph 181.