38 b. the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals. 103. With regard to the arguments put forward by Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim concerning the violation of Article 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) of the American Convention to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia, this Court observes that State agents forced the alleged victim to express publicly, against her will, opinions that were not her own and false information about her abduction, using coercive measures (supra para. 85). Accordingly, the Court considers that the juridical scope of these facts is subsumed in the previously established violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), and 8(2) and 8(3) (Right to a Fair Trial) of the American Convention (supra para. 98 and infra para. 130). XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8, 25 AND 1(1) (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION AND OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS, AND NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 8 OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE) Arguments of the Commission 104. The Commission alleges that the State violated the right to a fair trial [Note: judicial guarantees in Spanish] and to effective judicial protection embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect and ensure the rights imposed by Article 1(1) thereof, and the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, because: a) Given that the alleged victim, whose disappearance was feared, could not obtain judicial protection on her own behalf, this right was transferred to her next of kin. This remedy, which must be simple and rapid, is designed to require an urgent official response in case of unlawful detention; b) It has been established that the next of kin of Maritza Urrutia, through the Archdiocesan Human Rights Office, filed a writ of habeas corpus the day after her abduction. Likewise, independently, the Guatemalan Ombudsman filed a writ of habeas corpus in favor of the victim. However, the next of kin of the alleged victim received no response from the State to either recourse. The liberation of Maritza Urrutia was not the result of jurisdictional control over her detention, but part of a complex plan contrived by the State, in which the judicial authorities prepared the victim’s amnesty even before she had requested it officially, and granted it to her without even asking her about where and in whose hands she had been during the preceding days, the treatment to which she had been subjected or, at least, whether she was under any kind of pressure; c) The victim and/or her next of kin have the right to a judicial investigation by a criminal court to determine who were responsible for the violations and punish them. The result of the investigation should not be the product of the mechanical execution of certain procedural formalities, but the State must seek the truth effectively and, to this end, must demonstrate that it has conducted an immediate, exhaustive, genuine and impartial investigation. The State must also identify and punish the perpetrators of the