36 [personal integrity], and personal liberty. The Court shall analyze the issues related to the State’s duty to investigate in Chapter VII of this Judgment. C.4. Arrest and subsequent disappearance of Mr. Jose Luis Ibsen Peña 104. At the public hearing, Mr. Tito Ibsen Castro declared that after the arrest of Rainer Ibsen Cardenas, his father, José Luis Ibsen Peña, took action in order to gain access to the detention center of Achocalla, the place “[where] his son was allegedly confined,” without success. Likewise, he stated that once the Ibsen family learned about the press release of June 22, 1972, stating that Mr. Ibsen Cardenas had apparently died in an escape attempt (supra para. 75), Mr. Ibsen Peña communicated with the representatives of the Departmental Police Headquarters in the city of Santa Cruz without obtaining any answer.131 The State did not contest these points; therefore, the Court considers these events as proven. 105. Furthermore, during the public hearing (supra para. 8), Mr. Tito Ibsen Castro indicated that in the search for the whereabouts and location of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, members of the Departmental Police Headquarters warned Mr. Ibsen Peña that he should “go into exile” from Bolivia “with the pretext that he would be assasinated.” On this matter, Martha Castro Mendoza declared that Jose Luis Ibsen Peña “had gone into exile to Argentina,” but that “his concern for his children made him return to La Paz [sic].” The statement of Rebeca Ibsen Castro coincides with these assertions.132 The Tribunal has verified from the pertinent parts of the passport of José Luis Ibsen Peña incorporated into the case file of the instant case, that on November 10, 1971, Mr. Ibsen Peña left Bolivia and entered the Republic of Argentina, and that on the 19th of that same month and year, he left that country and returned to Bolivia.133 The Commission mentioned this fact without connecting it to any particular argument. In this regard, the Court deems appropriate to note that from the passport of Mr. Ibsen Peña, it cannot be inferred that Mr. Ibsen Peña had been “in exile" in Argentina due to his search for his son Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas. However, given that the State did not contest the foregoing or present evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal considers these events proven,. 106. On February 10, 1973, José Luis Ibsen Peña, of 47 years of age (supra para. 71), and his son Tito Ibsen Castro, of approximately 8 years of age134 were buying school supplies in the city of Santa Cruz. While walking on Indepedencia Street, Mr. Ibsen Peña was detained by State security officials, who ordered him to accompany them. Mr. Ibsen Peña expressed his concern that it would be the first time his son Tito would return home alone.135 That 131 Cf. Declaration rendered during the public hearing (supra para. 8) by Mr. Tito Ibsen Castro. 132 Cf. Declaration during the public hearing (supra para. 8) by Mr. Tito Ibsen Castro; declaration rendered before public notary (affidavit) by Mrs. Martha Castro Mendoza (case file on the merits, volume III, folio 634), and declaration rendered before public notary (affidavit) by Mrs. Rebeca Ibsen Castro (case file on the merits, volume III, folio 739). 133 Cf. Passport of José Luís Ibsen Peña (case file of appendixes to the application, appendix 14, folios 1785 and 1788 to 1789). 134 Cf. Birth certificate of Mr. Tito Ibsen Castro (case file of appendixes to the application, appendix 12, folio 1767). 135 Cf. Declaration during the public hearing (supra para. 8) by Mr. Tito Ibsen Castro; declaration rendered before public notary (affidavit) by Mrs. Martha Castro Mendoza (case file on the merits volume III, folio 636), and declaration rendered before public notary (affidavit) by Mrs. Rebeca Ibsen Castro (case file on the merits, volume III, folio 739).