investigation of what occurred in order to provide a satisfactory explanation of what happened and, as applicable, refute the presumption of responsibility. 120. In reference to the special obligation as a guarantor, the Commission is of the view that, regardless of whether or not the incident constituted a forced disappearance—an aspect examined in paras. 123-141 below—there is evidence to conclude that the State failed to meet its guarantor's obligation in relation to Mr. Isaza Uribe. As is noted in the section on established facts, the Commission observes that even though the Administrative Litigation Chamber inclined toward the jailbreak hypothesis, it noted and declared that there had been a lapse on the administration's part with respect to surveillance of the detainee. Bearing in mind that the violence waged by paramilitaries against members of the SUTIMAC trade union and UP supporters in Puerto Nare was well known—and described as an extermination campaign by the Historical Truth Commission (Comisión de Esclarecimiento Histórico), the fact that Mr. Isaza Uribe was both a member of that trade union and a UP supporter in that very area, meant that he was at particular risk while deprived of his liberty in the custody of state security forces that had links to the aforementioned paramilitary groups. As was indicated in the established facts, in the year that Víctor Isaza Uribe disappeared, other UP supporters and/or trade unionists in the same municipality were murdered or disappeared at or very close to facilities of state security forces. In that regard, the Commission believes that the authorities must have been aware of the grave danger to Mr. Isaza Uribe in that context and, consequently, and should adopted special preventive measures against that situation. 121. The State has not furnished any information that would allow the Commission to understand how the surveillance system at the detention center in question operated at the time of the events, or about special protection measures for people deprived of liberty in special situations of danger such as the one faced by Mr. Isaza Uribe. Bearing that situation in mind and the aforementioned conclusion of the Council of State regarding a security lapse, the Commission concludes that the State failed in its duty to protect by not adopting necessary measures to protect the life and well-being of Mr. Isaza Uribe, who was in its custody and exposed to a situation of grave danger. 122. As to whether the State provided a satisfactory explanation of what happened to Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe while he was in its custody, the Commission observes that 28 years have passed since his disappearance without any judicial clarification of the facts being. The State's investigative response will be examined in detail in the section that deals with the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention and Article I.b of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. For the purposes of this section, it suffices to conclude that the State has not offered a satisfactory explanation about what occurred under its custody and, therefore, it has not refuted the presumption of responsibility described hereinabove. This has a bearing on the Commission's following analysis as to whether or not the facts are consistent with the crime of forced disappearance. 2. Analysis of whether what happened to Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe constitutes forced disappearance 123. Among its earliest cases, the Inter-American Court referred to the practice of forced disappearance in the following terms: Forced or involuntary disappearance is one of the most serious and cruel human rights violations, in that it not only produces arbitrary deprivation of freedom but places the physical integrity, security and the very life of the detainee in danger. It also leaves the detainee utterly defenseless, bringing related crimes in its wake. Hence, it is important for the State to take all measures as may be necessary to avoid such acts, to investigate them and to sanction those responsible, as well as to inform the next of kin of the disappeared person's whereabouts and to make reparations where appropriate.91 91 I/A Court H.R., Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of July 2, 1996. Series C, No. 36, par. 66.