25 69. This Court has stated on other occasions that [u]ndoubtedly, the State has the right and duty to guarantee its own security. It is also out of discussion that every society suffers from infraction upon its legal order. However, despite the seriousness of certain actions by inmates and their responsibility for some felonies, it is not admissible that power can be exerted in such a limitless way or that the State can use any proceedings to reach its objectives, without respecting law and morality. No State activity can be grounded on disregarding human dignity.36 70. In spite of accepting the possible detainees' responsibility for committing serious crimes besides and being armed, while in the Blue Pavilion of El Frontón prison, these facts are far from constituting [...] sufficient elements to justify the amount of force used in this and in other rioted prisons and that it was understood like a political clash between the Government and Sendero Luminoso true or alleged terrorists [...] which probably led to Pavilion demolition, with all of its consequences, including the deaths of detainees who eventually had ended up surrendering and a clear disregard to look for survivors 37 and afterwards rescuing corpses. 71. Based on the circumstances that surrounded the riots’ subduing at El Frontón, mainly regarding the disproportionate use of force by Peruvian Navy and the fact that for 14 years the whereabouts of Nolberto Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera has been unknown, it is possible to conclude that their lives were arbitrarily deprived by Peruvian authorities in violation of Article 4 of the Convention. 38 72. As a consequence, the Court concludes that the State violated, to the detriment of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Ugarte Rivera, Article 4(1) of the Convention. XI ARTICLE 5(2) RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT 73. Regarding the violation of Article 5(2) of the Convention, the Commission stated that: a) Peru is responsible for the forced disappearance of Nolberto Durand Ugarte and Gabriel Pablo Ugarte Rivera and, in order to establish grounds for their argument, it referred to what it was stated, inter alia, in the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of People, in the Statement on Protection of all People against Forced Disappearances approved by the UN General Assembly and the UN Task Force on Forced or Involuntary Disappearances; 36 cf. Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 9, para.162; and Velázquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 9, para. 154. 37 38 Neira Alegría et al Case, supra note 12. para.74. cf. Castillo Páez Case, supra note 11 para. 72; Blake Case, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of July 2, 1996. Series C No. 27, para. 39; Neira Alegría et al Case; supra note 12, para. 76; and Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, supra note 8, para. 56.