8 involved. 8 The Commission believes, in accordance w ith this standard, that the above-mentioned Working Group does not belong to the category of international organizations w hose mandate may produce the duplication referred to in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(1)(d) of the American Convention. 9 In effect, the Working Group is a mechanism that may consider concrete situations involving disappearances w ith States but it does not have a case system the purpose of w hich is to issue decisions assigning specific responsibilities. In addition, the State has not submitted background w ith w hich to establish that the situation of the alleged victim in the instant complaint has been clarified by that organization. Therefore, it is appropriate to deem that the requirements established in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 38. In view of the de facto and de jure evidence submitted by the parties and the nature of the matter presented for its review , the IACHR feels that the allegations made by the petitioners regarding the scope of the alleged responsibility of the State w ith respect to the failure to shed light in the courts regarding the events surrounding the abduction and subsequent disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe, w ith the alleged acquiescence of the State, from the La Sierra prison in the municipality of Puerto Naré, Department of Antioquia, as w ell as the alleged failure of due diligence by the State in preventing the events and investigating and punishing those responsible, could characterize possible violations of the rights to recognition of juridical personality, life, personal integrity, personal liberty, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection established in Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8(1), and 25 consistent w ith Article 1(1) of the American Convention. It is appropriate for the IACHR to analyze the possible scope of the State’ s responsibility in its role as guarantor of persons w ho are deprived of liberty. 10 39. In addition, applying the principle of iura novit curia, it is appropriate for the Commission to establish the potential responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons based on the ongoing nature of the failure to shed light on the crime of forced disappearance in view of the allegations made by the petitioners regarding the State’ s acquiescence in the alleged disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe. 40. The petitioners allege that the disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe w as not an isolated event in that, since 1986 various members of SUTIMAC have been murdered or disappeared by the paramilitary group MAS so that, applying the principle of iura novit curia, it is appropriate for the Commission to analyze in the merits phase the potential responsibility of the State for the alleged violation of the freedom of association established in Article 16 of the American Convention as it relates to Article 1(1) thereof . 41. The Commission shall also consider in the merits phase the alleged v iolation of Articles 5, 8(1), and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of the relatives of the alleged victim. 42. With respect to the allegations regarding the alleged violation of the rights to freedom of expression and protection of the family established in Articles 13 and 17 of the 8 I/A Court H.R., Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C, No. 61, para. 53. 9 IACHR. Report No. 70/10, Petition 11.587, Admissibility, César Gustabo Garzón Guzmán, Ecuador, July 12, 2010, para. 38. 10 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “ Juvenile Reeducation Institute.” Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112, paras. 151 and 152. See also I/A Court H.R., Baldeón García Case. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C, No. 147, paras. 85 and 105.