103. The Court emphasizes the possible use of secret prisons as part of the authorities' refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty of the victim and to provide information about his fate or whereabouts, even in response to the measures taken by family members and the agencies in charge of the investigations. 155 In this case, at least seven applications for habeas corpus were filed on behalf of Mr. García; the facts were denounced to the Head of State at the time, the Ministry of Defense, and the media (supra paras. 69 to 75). However, the family did not obtain any official information about the detention or fate of Edgar Fernando García. To the contrary, records of the responses to those remedies according to which Mr. García was not detained appeared in the Historical Archive of the National Police. The Court also underscores that Edgar Fernando García’s capture was not recorded in the report on the Patrol and Cleansing Operation executed on October 18, 1984; rather, to the contrary, it was noted that the operation had been carried out “with nothing to report.” 156 Similarly, records exist which indicate that when the National Police was asked for information in this regard, it denied that it had executed an operation in the area and on the date that Mr. García was captured (supra para. 75). 104. In this regard, the Court underscores the testimony of Mrs. Montenegro, who stated that she “had never, never received a single response. Never, it was all lies; deception. [They] were always told that the applications for habeas corpus were declared void; that Fernando was not there, that he did not appear, that he did not exist, that he had gone to Canada; he was just someone who did not exist.” 157 Indeed, the Court observes that, at the time when Mr. García’s disappearance commenced, the Guatemalan authorities did not acknowledge that they had executed the deprivations of liberty with which they initiated forced disappearances, and did not provide information on the whereabouts or fate of the victims, despite the steps taken by their families and by the organs in charge of criminal investigations. 158 This lack of information concerning Mr. García’s fate or whereabouts has continued to date, and proves the State's refusal to provide information. 105. Regarding Article 5 of the American Convention, this Court has maintained that forced disappearance violates the right to personal integrity, because the mere fact of prolonged isolation and compulsory solitary confinement represents cruel and inhuman treatment contrary to paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 of the Convention; thus, it is evident that every dimension of the personal integrity of the victim of forced disappearance is violated. 159 106. In any case, the Court has established that submitting those detained to official law enforcement units, State agents, or individuals acting with their acquiescence or tolerance, who perpetrate torture and murder with impunity, represents, in itself, an infringement of the obligation to prevent violations of the right to personal integrity and to life, even if it is 155 Cf. CEH, supra, volume II, p. 415, para. 2068. 156 Cf. PN. Log for February 18, 1984, GT PN 26-02 S002, No. 25374 (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex 30, folio 1413). 157 Cf. Testimony given by Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom before the Inter-American Court during the public hearing in this case. Similarly, see affidavit prepared by Alejandra García Montenegro on April 20, 2012 (merits file, tome II, folio 806). 158 Cf. CEH, supra, volume II, p. 415, para. 2068. 159 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 187, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 116. 38