Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons and Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. B. State 11. The State argues that the case under review does not involve the crime of forced disappearance under the standards of both domestic law and international human rights law. In particular, the State denies that Juan López deprived Antonio González of his liberty, because he voluntarily went with him. In this regard, it contends that there was a relationship of “friendship” between them, since Juan López would regularly go to the cooperative store where Antonio González worked and Mr. González would allow him to make purchases on credit. Additionally, it contends that during the initial inquiry, no convincing evidence was introduced as to the motive for the alleged crime or the role that Juan López played in the disappearance, both of which are required in order to ascribe criminal liability to someone. 12. The State has also been emphatic in claiming that there is no evidence at all to suggest the involvement of any State agent in the detention or disappearance of Antonio González. As to Juan López’s membership in the Paz y Justicia group, it argues that it is “mere supposition unsupported by evidence to bear out with any certainty its version of the events.” In this regard, it contends that the petitioner has failed to prove any link between Juan López, the Mexican government and an alleged paramilitary organization. 13. Additionally, Mexico flatly rejects that in the state of Chiapas there has existed or exists any type of paramilitary activity as described by the petitioner and denies the alleged pattern of human rights violations in northern Chiapas state. It further rejects the use of the adjective “paramilitary,” inasmuch as it argues that there has not been any link between these organizations and the public security authorities or the Army, noting that: “it has not been proven that any group of this nature has been created in our country by decree of law, or has been hierarchically subordinated to Mexican authorities, or has been trained or supervised thereby.” Finally, it claims that in all cases in which criminal activity of a particular organization has been proven, authorities have investigated ex officio and prosecuted those responsible. 14. Moreover, the State flatly rejects that it has supported or tolerated the existence of armed civilian groups, and also rejects having authored the document known as the 1994 Chiapas Campaign Plan, inasmuch as no evidence could link it to state authorities, official seals or information to suggest it had been written by the State, noting that it can only be found through an electronic link of the victims’ own representatives. 15. Additionally, the State contends that there is no “real and precise” nexus between the alleged context of paramilitary activity in Chiapas and the disappearance of Antonio González Méndez, or that political, ideological or labor matters were behind the disappearance. In this regard, it alleges that the investigation corroborated that Antonio González was not a member of the PRD and that neither his wife nor the other witnesses testified that he had been actively involved in the EZLN or any other political group that could have been behind the facts described by the petitioner. 16. Lastly, the State asserts that it has taken every step available to it in order to investigate diligently and effectively the circumstances of his disappearance and punish those responsible. In this regard, it explained that the efforts of the Public Prosecutor’s Office have been ongoing and have been aimed at following all lines of investigation suggested by Sonia López and her representatives, as well as those identified by the prosecutorial authority. Finally, it claimed that many different investigated steps were exhausted in order to determine the whereabouts of Antonio González Méndez and uncover the historical truth of the case. III. FINDINGS OF FACT 3