crime and to investigate and punish the perpetrators; (c) The State has acted in connivance with the perpetrators or with total disregard for the situation of the potential victims, facilitating the actions of the non-State actors who commit the act; or (d) The State has created the conditions that allowed their commission. In such cases, the State has the burden of proving that there was no acquiescence on its part, and it must demonstrate that it has taken concrete measures and action to prevent, investigate and punish the crime, and that such measures have been effective in practice. 23 26. In addition, the Committee recalls that under international law, States have strict obligations with regard to due diligence when they have knowledge of a case of disappearance, or of a real and imminent risk of disappearance, perpetrated by a non-State actor. These due diligence obligations are particularly strict where women or girls are involved, owing to the link that the disappearance may have with, inter alia, acts of sexual violence, femicide and trafficking in women. 24 27. In these cases, States have the obligation to search for missing individuals in accordance with the Guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons. 25 Even though the State may not immediately have the capacity to search for and locate the person – for instance, if the non-State actors alleged to be responsible for the disappearance have control over the territory in which the person was disappeared – the Committee may request the State party to take all reasonable measures, within the scope of their powers, that are necessary to do so, including interim measures, such as the following: registering the case in a specific database; securing mass graves and preserving evidence; collecting relatives’ DNA; providing assistance to relatives, including legal and psychological assistance; and taking steps, to the extent possible, to obtain information from the non-State actor as to the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person. 26 VI. CONCLUSION 28. In its determination of State responsibility for the enforced disappearance of the victim, the majority opinion should have addressed the analysis and legal consequences of the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the State in relation to the acts of non-State actors operating under its jurisdiction. Beyond the attribution of international responsibility to the State for failing to fulfill its role as guarantor, the examination of its responsibility for acts of third parties is framed within the factual context of the litigation in the instant case and the elements that arise from the case file point to the state's acquiescence to a declared case of administration of justice and punishments by private parties. 29. The lack of analysis on state responsibility for acquiescence to violations of the American Convention by individuals affects the integrity of the reasoning behind the judgment as to the nature and scope of responsibility for the events that led to the enforced disappearance of Fredy Núñez Naranjo; Ibidem, para. 3-7. Ibidem, para. 22. 25 UN Committee against Forced Disappearance, "Guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons" CED/C/7, May 8, 2019. 26 UN Committee on Enforced Disappearance, "Statement on non-State actors in the context of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance" CED/C/10, March 13, 2023, para. 24. 23 24 8