attempt to undermine the charges against them […].” 60 The report concludes that “to date, the responsibility of the police involved in the referenced process has not been credibly proven, and there is a certain ‘constant refrain’ in the jurisdictional investigations. Critical evidence that could orient the direction of the process has not been acted on […].”61 71. With regard to critical evidence not taken, in the March 31, 1999 report of the People’s Defender, reference was made to an interview with the Provincial Prosecutor, “to verify the progress of the prejurisdictional investigations into the events, noting that after taking the statements of the implicated police officers, no further steps were undertaken.” 62 In its October 8, 1999 report, the Office of the People’s Defender referred to evidence that the Prosecution had not taken: “the testimony of Raúl Donayres Huamán (who was also imprisoned at the Angaraes PNP Headquarters in the early morning of 3/20/99), and of Maura Romero de Raez, reconstruction measures: a) to corroborate the statements by Marcos Sierra Tueros, b) with regard to the path taken by the police vehicle early in the morning of 3/20/99; a mechanics expert to determine the condition of the AVIR police vehicle; judicial inspections at the Julcani, Ccochaccasa, and Recuperada mining camps; the testimony of PNP SO2 officer Jorge Carey Romero, PNP SO1 Hugo Quispe Natividad, and PNP SO1 José Paco Nolazco, police officers who were on duty at the Recuperada Mine.” 63 72. According to the petitioners, the information and evidence obtained by the Office of the People’s Defender were made available to the Office of the Public Prosecution for its consideration, as part of the investigation into the disappearance of Walter Munárriz Escobar. In this regard, one of the recommendations of the October 8, 1999 report was precisely to maintain “ongoing contact with the judges who are currently investigating the events, to assist in clarifying the facts.” 64 V. LEGAL ANALYSIS 73. In view of the positions of the parties and the proven facts, the Commission will conduct is analysis of the merits in two sections. First, the IACHR will analyze available information on the alleged forced disappearance in the light of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons [CIDFP]. Secondly, the IACHR will analyze the investigations and proceedings initiated internally as a result of those facts and in the light of the same international instruments. A. Rights to recognition as a person before the law, to personal liberty, to humane treatment, and to life (Articles 3.1, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 5.1, 5.2, and 4.1, considered in conjunction with Article 1.1 of the American Convention); obligation referred to in Article 1.a) of the InterAmerican Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, and Articles 1 and 6 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 74. In this section, the Commission will analyze if what happened to Walter Munárriz Escobar constitute a forced disappearance, and therefore if it constitutes a violation of the rights to recognition as a person before the law, to life, to humane treatment, and to personal liberty, to his detriment, all to be considered in conjunction with the State’s obligation to respect said rights. 60 Annex 34. Report N° 033-099- RDP/HVCA of the Office of the People’s Defender, October 8, 1999. Annex 51 of the initial 61 Annex 34. Report N° 033-099- RDP/HVCA of the Office of the People’s Defender, October 8, 1999. Annex 51 of the initial 62 Annex 35. Report N° 022-099- RDP/HVCA of the Office of the People’s Defender, March 31, 1999. Annex to the initial 63 Annex 34. Report N° 033-099- RDP/HVCA of the Office of the People’s Defender, October 8, 1999. Annex 51 of the initial 64 Annex 34. Report N° 033-099- RDP/HVCA of the Office of the People’s Defender, October 8, 1999. Annex 51 of the initial petition. petition. petition. petition. petition. 16