when the disappearance occurs while the State occupies the special role of guarantor to the victim: This Tribunal has also held that, in some cases, the analysis of enforced disappearance based solely on the three elements mentioned may be insufficient or unnecessary. This happens, for example, when the disappearance affects individuals over whom the State has a special position as guarantor, such as that held with respect to individuals deprived of liberty. Thus, in the Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, the Court considered that, just as happens when the State does not provide a satisfactory explanation about the injuries suffered by a person deprived of liberty, the State's responsibility can also be presumed when the person disappears while under its custody without it disproving the allegations about state responsibility. Such conclusion arises as a corollary of the State's objective responsibility regarding the life, integrity, and safety of the individuals under its custody. 11 In these cases, the State must discover the truth of what happened by fulfilling its obligation to investigate diligently in order to clarify the circumstances and who was responsible for the disappearance. 11. In this case, the Ecuadorian State justified the inevitability of the kidnapping of Mr. Núñez Naranjo contending the existence of "force majeure." This argument was rejected by the Court due to the lack of clarity on how the abduction of Fredy Núñez Naranjo occurred and what actions were taken to prevent it. Specifically, no evidence was provided to demonstrate the “unforeseen, irresistible, and beyond their control nature of the circumstances that are classified as constituting force majeure.” 12 Therefore, verifying the disappearance of a victim who was under its custody is, in this case, sufficient to attribute international responsibility to the State. 12. Finally, regarding the duty to investigate and punish those responsible for the enforced disappearance of Mr. Fredy Núñez Naranjo, the InterAmerican Court reiterated the following position: Given that it has been established that Fredy Núñez Naranjo was a victim of enforced disappearance, there is no doubt that the rights provided for in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, with respect to him and his family, include not only the investigation of what happened and the punishment of those responsible; but also, the execution of a diligent and immediate search aimed at establishing the whereabouts of the victim and the consequent guarantee of the right to the truth. 13 13. The Inter-American Court concluded that the Ecuadorian State was responsible for violating the rights to recognition of juridical personality, to life, to humane treatment, and to personal liberty, in the terms of Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 in relation to 1(1) of the American Convention, in addition to contravening the obligation no to practice, permit, or tolerate the enforced disappearance of persons in the terms of Article I a) of the Inter-American Convention on enforced disappearance of Persons. 11 12 13 Cf. Case of Núñez Naranjo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 86. Cf. Case of Núñez Naranjo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 90. Cf. Case of Núñez Naranjo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 114. 4