18 lucky to get out alive.”54 The complex organization and logistics associated with the practice of forced disappearance called for the use of State’s resources and means.55 50. Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court considers proven that state agents, including the SIE agents, deprived of liberty or abducted Mr. Anzualdo Castro on December 16, 1993, took him to the basements of SIE, where he was confined during an uncertain period of time, and whose whereabouts are unknown up to the present. The Court shall now determine the legal consequences of these facts in the following chapter. B. Forced disappearance as a multiple violation of human rights 51. In the application, the Commission made a separate analysis of each one of the rights that it considers to be violated in this case. According to the representatives, the multiple nature of the violation in cases of forced disappearances implies that, "before a situation of arbitrary and illegal detention attributable to State agents or other people acting with the consent of the State, in which there is denial and lack of information and where the victims are deprived of their right to recourse to a competent court to claim for the detention, the violation of [several] right[s] is immediately established”, which makes unnecessary to analyze the specific elements that have been violated in relation to each right. Hence, the representatives presented an overall analysis of the violations alleged. 52. In particular, the Commission asserted that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal liberty, enshrined in Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the Convention in connection with Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro, based on the circumstances and methods used to deprive him from his liberty "in other words, in a manner contrary to the grounds and circumstances recognized in the Constitution and in criminal procedural law in force in Peru at the time of the events.” It alleged that Mr. Anzualdo was arrested without the order of a competent authority so that he might be taken before a judge, but in order to take him to a clandestine detention center without any institutional control. The Commission also mentioned that the State also violated Articles 7(5) and 7(6) of the Convention by failing to allow him the possibility to seek by his own means a prompt and effective recourse to decide the legality of his detention. The representatives alleged that the forced disappearance of Mr. Anzualdo entailed an automatic violation of the right to personal liberty, that is, of Article 7 of the American Convention per se, a rule that needs to be construed in light of Article XI of the ICFDP, insofar as his abduction followed by his relocation to the clandestine detention centers of SIE sought to impede that the next-of-kin as well as the competent authorities could locate him and prevent his disappearance. The State did not specifically refer to these allegations. 53. Apart from the foregoing, the representatives requested the Court to declare that the State violated “Articles 7(6) and 25 of the [American Convention] and XI of the ICFDP, for failing to comply with Article 2 of the [American Convention]" given the fact that “the judge who examined the writ of habeas corpus filed by Mr. Anzualdo Vicuña on behalf of his son, Kenneth, applied the law in a restrictive way, proving the 54 Final Report of the CVR, 2003, volume VI, chapter 1.2 Forced Disappearance of people by state agents, pages 84, available at http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/index.php 55 Cf. Final Report of the CVR, 2003, volume VI, chapter 1.2 Forced Disappearance of people by state agents, pages 99-100, available at http://www.cverdad.org.pe/ifinal/index.php