18. According to the Merits Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 18 and the rulings of other international organizations, 19 the Boards were to act as an "informal justice system" that ended up leading to allegations of kidnappings, tortures, and homicides. In this regard, it arose from determining the facts in this case that the Peasant Boards went public with their accusation against Fredy Núñez Naranjo as the alleged perpetrator of crimes against private property and the security of the community as justification for his alleged detention. 20 19. With regard to the above - as has been done in other cases where state responsibilities for the actions of third parties were determined - the Court should have determined whether Ecuador, through its agents, authorized, consented to, or tolerated practices of organized groups for the defense of their property and that in this case were involved in the removal of Fredy Núñez Naranjo from state custody and his subsequent detention, without any news of his whereabouts since then. 20. In this case, to determine the presence of any of these elements (state authorization, support, or acquiescence), it is possible to adopt the same argument used by the Inter-American Court to dismiss the occurrence of "force majeure" in the invasion of the Quero Canton police station. Indeed, the judgement reaffirms that the State did not provide evidence on how many individuals entered the police station or by what means; whether they were armed; how they threatened or assaulted police officers; what measures were taken by the officers to prevent what happened; nor whether police reinforcements were involved in a pursuit or in specific actions to locate Fredy Núñez Naranjo. 21 21. Therefore, the authorization of the defense of private ownership, combined with omissions in the face of actions by individuals that led to the victim being taken out of state control, as well as multiple state omissions in terms of IACHR. Report No. 60/19, Case 12,744 (Merits report), para. 22. IACHR. Report No. 60/19, Case 12,744 (Merits report), para. 24-26. 20 Cf. Case of Núñez Naranjo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 58. 21 Cf. Case of Núñez Naranjo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 91-92. "Firstly, the unexpected nature of the appearance of that significant number of individuals at the police station has not been proven. Secondly, the State did not explain how the kidnapping occurred. It was not specified how many individuals entered the police station, how they did it, or how they proceeded to release two community members and detain Fredy Núñez Naranjo. It has not been proven that these individuals were armed, although it can be assumed that the officers were, nor that they attacked or threatened the police officers in order for them to release the detainees, nor that they were the community members themselves who extracted them from the cell or cells. On this point, the Court is struck by the oddly identical and excessively succict nature of the phrases used in the reports and police statements that only refer to the number of community members and the fact that they breached the police station security, although it is not indicated exactly how that was done. Thirdly, the State of Ecuador did not prove any type of action taken by State agents aimed at protecting the persons who were deprived of their liberty under the State's responsibility and in its custody. In fact, the police reports do not even mention that the doors of the police station had been closed upon the arrival of the community members or the reasons why this would not have been possible, nor do they refer to whether there was any type of contact or communication between police officers or community members; nor do they mention the behavior exhibited by the two police officers and the commissioner present at the police station at the time of the incursion by the community members. There is no evidence that they called for reinforcements or carried out any kind of action that, ultimately, proved futile or unsuccessful against the determination and number of the community members. It is also not stated that they pursued, requested reinforcements, blocked roads, or attempted to immediately locate Mr. Núñez Naranjo, considering that the mobilization of 400 individuals just 3 kilometers away was easy to track, and that it would have been straightforward to determine the direction in which they were moving. It was the State's responsibility to provide evidence of the indicated facts not only because it was the party claiming force majeure, but also because this information should have been provided by its own agents. 18 19 6