39 corresponding crimes; to the contrary, Article 1(1) of the Convention will also have been violated; d) The State justified the freezing of the investigation owing to the impossibility of hearing the victim’s statement; this is unacceptable, considering the lines of investigation that were open to the Judiciary and which were never exhausted. The obligation to investigate cannot depend on the decision of the victim; and e) With regard to torture, the State acquired a series of special obligations when the Inter-American Convention against Torture entered into force; among the most important are the obligation to investigate and punish torture, pursuant to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention. Although more than ten years have elapsed since the facts occurred, the perpetrators of the violations have not been investigated or punished; nor has the State repaired the damage caused to the victim. Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victim 105. Regarding the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and the violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, the representatives of the alleged victim added the following to the arguments presented by the Commission: a) On August 9, 2000, the President of the Republic of Guatemala acknowledged the State’s responsibility for the facts on which the application and the arguments contained in this pleading before the Inter-American Court are based, which “is also equivalent to accepting that the violations of the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection of Maritza Urrutia and noncompliance with the obligations to investigate, prosecute and punish are the State’s responsibility”; b) Maritza Urrutia was denied the right to be informed of the reason for her detention, to communicate with a lawyer, and to be heard by a competent authority; c) The simple, rapid and effective recourse to which Maritza Urrutia had a right, when she was unlawfully deprived of her freedom by State agents, corresponded to the remedy of habeas corpus, according to Articles 263 and 264 of the Guatemala Constitution. This recourse is regulated so that the search for a person should be continuous, and the mere filing of the recourse constitutes notification of a crime, so that the judge who hears it must initiate an investigation de officio. In this case, the next of kin of the victim filed a writ of habeas corpus through the Guatemalan Archdiocesan Human Rights Office and another one was filed by the Guatemalan Ombudsman; d) The victim’s release was not the result of the recourses filed in her favor, but was effected by her captors. Following her release, the Attorney General took the alleged victim to the Fifth Criminal Trial Court to sign an act of amnesty which had been drawn up previously. In other words, neither of the two officials complied with their obligation to investigate the facts de officio, based on the complaints. Even though, at that time, the authorities might have believed that the absence of the victim was due to personal