Chapter 5 • Human Rights and Arrest, Pre-Trial and Administrative Detention ‘is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society in the terms of the Convention. ... Article 25 is closely linked to the general obligation contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, in that it assigns duties of protection to the States Parties through their domestic legislation’.”185 Furthermore, “‘the absence of an effective remedy to violations of the rights recognized by the Convention is itself a violation of the Convention by the State Party in which the remedy is lacking. In that sense, it should be emphasized that, for such a remedy to exist, it is not sufficient that it be provided for by the Constitution or by law or that it be formally recognized, but rather it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress’.”186 In the view of the Court, “this conclusion is true in ordinary and extraordinary circumstances”, and, as will be seen in Chapter 16 of this Manual, not even a declaration of state of emergency can be allowed “‘to entail the suppression or ineffectiveness of the judicial guarantees that the Convention requires the States Parties to establish for the protection of the rights not subject to derogation or suspension by the state of emergency’”.187 In the case of Castillo Petruzzi et al., the Inter-American Court found a violation of both article 7(6) and article 25, since the applicants, who were subsequently convicted of treason by a “faceless” military tribunal, had no possibility of recourse to judicial guarantees: one decree-law which regulated the crime of treason “denied persons suspected of terrorism or treason the right to bring actions seeking judicial guarantees”, and a second decree-law amended the Habeas Corpus and Amparo Act to the effect that “the writ of habeas corpus was impermissible when ‘petitioner’s case is in its examining phase or when petitioner is on trial for the very facts against which remedy is being sought’”.188 In the case of Suárez Rosero, the Court again emphasized that the remedies governed by article 7(6) “must be effective, since their purpose ... is to obtain without delay a decision ‘on the lawfulness of [his] arrest or detention,’ and, should they be unlawful, to obtain, also without delay, an ‘order [for] his release”; the Court further invoked its Advisory Opinion on Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations, where it held that “‘in order for habeas corpus to achieve its purpose, which is to obtain a judicial determination of the lawfulness of a detention, it is necessary that the detained person be brought before a competent judge or tribunal with jurisdiction over him (emphasis added). Here habeas corpus performs a vital role in ensuring that a person’s life and physical integrity are respected, in preventing his disappearance or the keeping of his 185 I-A Court HR, Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case v. Peru, judgment of May 30, 1999, in OAS doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/III.47, doc. 6, Annual Report of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1999, p. 276, para. 184. 186 Ibid., p. 277, para. 185; emphasis added. 187 Ibid., para. 186. 188 Ibid., pp. 275-276, paras. 179-180 and p. 277, para. 188. Human Rights in the Administration of Justice: A Manual on Human Rights for Judges, Prosecutors and Lawyers 201