41 119. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the arrest and subsequent forced disappearance of Mr. José Luis Ibsen Peña and, therefore, for the violation of the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment [personal integrity], and personal liberty. The Court shall analyze in Chapter VII of this Judgment the issue related to the State’s duty to investigate. * * * 120. In turn, in relation to the arguments of the Commission regarding the noncompliance with the obligations established in several Articles of the Convention on Forced Disappearance (supra paras. 3 and 76), the Tribunal notes that subparagraph a) of Article I thereof provides that the States Parties undertake “[n]ot to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in a state of emergency, exception status or suspension of individual guarantees, […].” Furthermore, Article XI of said Convention stipulates that “[e]very person deprived of liberty shall be held in an officially recognized place of detention and be brought before a competent judicial authority without delay, in accordance with applicable domestic law.” According to the Tribunal, it is clear that, in the instant case, based on the facts that have been established in this Chapter and in the forced disappearance to which Messrs. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and Jose Luis Ibsen Peña were subjected, the State failed to comply with the duties established in those provisions. 121. On the other hand, in the application the Inter-American Commission requested the Tribunal, among others, to declare the violation of Articles 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.5 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Messrs. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and Jose Luis Ibsen Peña. Regarding the rights these provisions referred to and based on the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, it is unnecessary in the instant case to determine whether the victims were informed of the reason for their detentions; whether the arrests were effected under the motivations and conditions established by the Bolivian legislation in force at the time of the events; and let alone, to establish whether the acts of the detention were unreasonable, unpredictable, or disproportionate. According to the context of the time of the events, it is evident that the detention of said persons were acts of abuse of power, that they were not ordered by a competent authority, and that their purpose was not to hand them over to a judge or other official authorized by law to decide regarding the legality of their detention, but to execute them or make them disappear.153 That is to say, their detention was manifestly illegal. * * * 122. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that in the instant case, the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4(1) (Right to Life), 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment) [Personal Integrity], and 7(1) (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and Jose Luis Ibsen Peña, based on the non-compliance with the duty to guarantee and respect those rights, as established in Article 1(1) therein, all of them in relation to the obligations stipulated in Articles I(a) and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance. The Court emphasizes the seriousness of the facts and the violations established in this Chapter and highlights that the instant case deals with the forced disappearance of two members of a same family. 153 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 89, para. 109, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 68.