40 elapsed without his whereabouts having been established or his remains found and identified,” there is sufficient indications to conclude that he was deprived of his life. In addition, it argued that the forced disappearance of the alleged victim had the objective to deprive him of his juridical personality, thus leaving him outside the legal and institutional order. In this way, "his perpetrators sought impunity for their acts, as it was guaranteed that it would be impossible for the victim and his next of kin to seek judicial protection, in view of the constant and systematic lack of any investigation related to his whereabouts, since this information was denied and/or distorted by the authorities.” 113. The representatives agreed with the arguments put forward by the Commission. Moreover, they indicated that Jose Luis Ibsen Peña, since the arbitrary arrest of his son Rainer, had assumed his search for the whereabouts and location of his son, “bothering authorities and rulers of the respondent State, to the extreme point of receiving threats […that he would] suffer the same fate as [his son], that is, to be arbitrarily deprived of liberty by state agents […] and then disappeared.” 114. In turn, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations contained in Article 1(1) therein, and the violation the obligations stablished in Articles I and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, in relation to Mr. Jose Luis Ibsen Peña. In addition, the State acknowledged the facts mentioned by the Commission in relation to the arrest and subsequent disappearance of [Mr. Jose Luis Ibsen Peña] (supra paras. 5 and 23 to 26). The State also expressed its willingness to shed light on the cases of "disappeared persons during the dictatorship of Hugo Banzer Suárez" and especially, "to give priority [...to the case of] Jose Luis Ibsen Peña.” 115. The Tribunal deems that there is sufficient evidence regarding the fact that Mr. Jose Luis Ibsen Peña was arrested on February 10, 1973 by state agents dressed as civilians and, later on, transferred to the premises of detention center El Pari, located in the city of Santa Cruz, where torture was commonly practiced by the officers of the Department for Political Order (supra para. 53). He was held there for several days, where he was seen with signs of physical misstreatment, and as of February 28, 1973, his next of kin have had no knowledge of his whereabouts (supra para. 109). 37 years have elapsed since his arrest and the State has still not given a response regarding his whereabouts. 116. From the information available in this case and the pattern of the detentions conducted during the time of the events, it is possible to conclude that Mr. Jose Luis Ibsen Peña was possibly arrested due to his connection with the Bolivian Labour Headquarters and also for the actions taken in order to locate his son Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas (supra paras. 52, 72 and 104 to 105). 117. In this respect, the Tribunal reiterates what it has previously mentioned in this Judgment regarding the State’s duty to guarantee the protection of the rights of those who are deprived of liberty while in custody of the State (supra paras. 63 to 64 and 95). 118. Moreover, as to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the American Convention (supra paras. 112 and 113), the Court repeats what it mentioned in paragraphs 96 to 101 supra and, in view of those considerations, it deems that the State violated the right to juridical personality of Mr. José Luis Ibsen Peña. * * *