15. Finally, the petitioners alleged the violation to the right to humane treatment to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Guachalá: his mother, Zoila Rosario Chimbó Jarro, his three sisters, Martha, Nancy and Alexandra, and his brother Ángel. This, as a result of the emotional distress generated by the forced disappearance of her son, as well as the lack of clarification of the events. B. Position of the State 16. The State argued that it is not responsible for the disappearance of Mr. Guachalá from the Julio Endara Psychiatric Hospital. It explained that when Mr. Guachalá entered the hospital, his mother, Zoila Chimbó, signed a document whereby in case of “escape (…) it is not responsible for the consequences.” 17. Likewise, the State argued that on the two occasions that Mr. Guachalá was admitted to the hospital he was provided with all respective health services. The State held that the hospitalization of Mr. Guachalá fulfilled the standards established in the “Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of the Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas” adopted by the IACHR. This, because Mr. Guachalá was hospitalized after a thorough analysis of his health condition, as well as the risks that his condition generated for him and third parties. The State held that on his second admission, Mr. Guachalá was sedated “in order to control his health condition, reason why the mother (…) signed a medical authorization as his legal representative.” The State added that Ms. Chimbó was periodically informed about the condition of her son. 18. The State stated that on January 17, 2004, Mr. Guachalá “escaped the psychiatric center while the nursing assistant attended another patient.” In this regard, the State held that, despite having security guards, this hospital “is designed in such a way that patients do not feel confinement, this being also the reason it had open spaces.” The State indicated that the “escape of patients in psychiatric centers constitutes a major public health challenge in various countries around the world.” The State held that consequently, “persons with psychiatric factors, hospitalized in specialized institutions are prone to escape (…) thus it is impossible to completely avoid the risk of escape, given the conditions of this type of patients.” 19. The State held that without prejudice, the hospital staff adopted several measures of search with the objective of locating Mr. Guachalá. It stated that in spite of these actions, it was not possible to find him. 20. The State also noted that after receiving the complaint by Ms. Chimbó, the Office of the Attorney General carried out various proceedings with the objective of locating Mr. Guachalá, such as, inter alia, gathering declarations, surveying the site of the events, requesting migration movements. In relation to the habeas corpus action, the State indicated that it complied with the resolution of the Constitutional Court because it decided to continue the investigations. The State also indicated that since 2012 it has a “Protocol of action for the search, investigation and location of missing, lost or strayed persons” and that, in 2015, the Ministry of Public Health issued the “Regulation to provide integral health attention to the victims of disappearance, their next of kin, and persons in condition of not providing evidence of their identity.” 21. The State held that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results. It stated that, as a result, it cannot be held internationally responsible since it adopted all measures within its power to locate Mr. Guachalá. 22. Additionally, the State alleged that what happened to Mr. Guachalá cannot be characterized as a forced disappearance because: i) there was no detainment of the victim by the State or acquiescence of State agents; ii) even though Mr. Guachalá was admitted to the hospital, it was a legal restriction of his freedom given his physical and mental situation at the time he was institutionalized, in accordance with Article 83 of the thenin force Health Code; iii) there was no denial of information about the situation of Mr. Guachalá after he escaped the hospital; and iv) Ms. Chimbó had access to file a habeas corpus action. IV. PROVEN FACTS 3