victims, and including ineffective investigations with little due diligence which, far from establishing the truth, perpetuate the lack of knowledge with regard to what happened to the victim.7 31. Along the same lines, the Court has found that in a case of alleged forced disappearance, the evidentiary and presumptive proof is particularly important, since “this type of violation is characterized by an attempt to suppress all information that would provide proof of the detention, whereabouts, and fate of the victims.”8 32. The Commission will now give its opinion on the facts that it regards as proven and will evaluate them in the light of the relevant provisions of the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons. A. Detention and disappearance of Walter Munárriz Escobar 33. According to the petitioners, Walter Munárriz Escobar, 19 years of age, was in his second year at the Mining Engineering School of the University of Huancavelica, and he lived with his mother, Gladys Justina Escobar Candiotti, and his five siblings: Eric, Gladys, Amparo, Junior, and Alaín.9 32. The parties agree on the basic facts which are described in the following paragraphs 33 and 34. Moreover, these facts were established in the judgment of May 25, 2004. In view of the fact that the description in that judicial ruling is consistent with the narration of the parties, and that said narration is also internally consistent, the Commission considers these facts as established. 33. Walter Munárriz was detained early in the morning of March 20, 1999, by a noncommissioned officer of the Peruvian National Police (PNP) and taken to the Lircay police station in Peru, after having entered the room of two guests at “Los Manolos” Hotel. 10 The petitioners gave a consistent description, uncontested by the State, to the effect that said room was inhabited by a police officer and his wife. According to the petitioners, Walter Munárriz Escobar went to that hotel to visit his friend Jorge Suárez, who was staying there. The Commission does not have any documents supporting the constitutional and/or legal basis for detention in these circumstances. Neither does it have any record that Walter Munárriz Escobar was taken to the Lircay police station. On the contrary, the State acknowledged that no official documents were issued in this regard. 34. Walter Munárriz was taken to the Lircay police station at approximately 4:10 a.m. by officer Gunther Cuaresma Ramos.11 Minutes later, the owner of “Los Manolos” hotel, Maura Romero Bendezú, appeared at the police station in person with her brother, and when she realized that the person in question was Walter Munárriz Escobar, whom she had known since he was a child12 and knew to be a well-behaved person, she told Officer Adolfo Ángeles Ramos that she would not file a complaint against him. 13 When Mrs. Maura 7 56. IACHR. Report No. 111/09. Case 11324. Merits. Narciso González Medina. Dominican Republic, November 10, 2009. Para. 8 Inter-American Court, Corte IDH. Case of González Medina and family vs. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, para. 134. 9 Annex 2. Initial petition of June 23, 2005. 10 Annex 3. Copy of the judgment of May 25, 2004. Annex to State Memorandum No. 7-5-M/066 of February 9, 2006. 11 Annex 3. Copy of the judgment of May 25, 2004. Annex to State Memorandum No. 7-5-M/066 of February 9, 2006. Annex 4. Statement by Mrs. Maura Romero on March 27, 1999, to the Inspector of the Angaraes Provincial PNP Headquarters. Annex to the States Memorandum No. 7-5-M/438 of October 1, 2007. In that statement, Mrs. Romero declare that she had known Walter Munárriz Escobar since he was a child “due to a shared field owned by distant relatives of the mother of the same, Mrs. Gladys Escobar Candiotti, and to the fact that she was a friend of the entire family.” 12 13 Annex 3. Copy of the judgment of May 25, 2004. Annex to State Memorandum No. 7-5-M/066 of February 9, 2006. 6