Movilla Galarcio was deprived of his liberty by agents of the State or by persons acting with its authorization, support or acquiescence. 136. Secondly, the disappearance was reported on May 17, 1993, and the next day a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed on behalf of Mr. Movilla, which was rejected two days later (supra paras. 80 and 81). The authorities made certain attempts to locate the victim at the end of May 1993 and in the ensuing months (supra para. 83), but then did not undertake further investigations until several years later. Indeed, the State has acknowledged that it did not make diligent efforts to find Mr. Movilla until 2019 (supra paras. 14, 17, 19, 30, 33, 34 and 39). The Court deems the State’s failure to take sufficient action after Mr. Movilla’s disappearance was reported and a petition for habeas corpus filed, constituted a refusal to investigate the report of his detention and possible disappearance, and to acknowledge the detention. 137. Based on what has been said so far, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the forced disappearance of Mr. Movilla for two reasons: because it failed to fulfill its obligation to respect rights,157 and also to guarantee the rights affected by the human rights violation (supra paras. 117 and 120). Yet to be assessed is the alleged non-compliance with Article 2 of the American Convention and I d) of the IACFDP, which call for the adoption of domestic legal provisions or measures to comply with the commitments assumed under the Convention. 158 138. Under Article 2 of the Convention, States are required to adapt their domestic legislation in order to guarantee the rights enshrined in the treaty. This obligation entails the development and/or suppression of both norms and practices, in such a way as to achieve the effective guarantee of rights.159 It has been established (supra para. 69) that by May 1993 State security forces, based on the concept of “the enemy within” associated with the doctrine of national security, carried out attacks against persons linked to trade unions or the political left. These practices were supported by regulations that, at least in part, remained in effect during that period. Such was the case, as has been stated (supra para. 57), of the “1978 Combat Intelligence Manual (M.I.C.) EJC 2-3” and the “1987 Counterguerrilla Combat Regulations EJC-3-10, of the General Command of the Military Forces – Provision 036 of November 12, 1987.” Although the State has refused to provide copies of these regulations (supra para. 57), which prevents the Court from examining and ruling directly on them, this Court can consider the State practice associated with the texts or the interpretation thereof. 139. As the Court has ruled on a previous occasion, the contents of regulations such as those examined here, “or their practical application,” resulted in a breach of the State’s obligation to adapt its domestic legal order to the American Convention. Specifically, in failing to comply with Article 2, the State in question “was in breach of its obligation to guarantee human rights in a The Court has proceeded in a similar manner on previous occasions, holding an act of forced disappearance to be proven based on: (i) the context of the facts of the case, which pointed to the commission of forced disappearances against a certain group of people associated with certain political groups; (ii) the fact that the victim in question had been subject to investigation and surveillance by the State; (iii) the fact that the State did not offer a different hypothesis (other than that of the disappearance having been committed by state agents); and, iv) the fact that a long time had elapsed and the victim’s whereabouts remained unknown. The Court has adjudged the criteria for a forced disappearance to have been met (supra para. 119) when, even though it was established that State agents detained the victim, for a long time the State authorities failed to provide information on his whereabouts or offer a “different hypothesis” of the facts. (Cf. Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, paras. 147 to 157.) 158 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207; Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 146, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru, supra, para. 99. 159 The Court has affirmed, in effect, that the obligation to comply with Article 2 of the Convention implies the adoption of measures of two kinds, namely: (i) the elimination of any norms and practices that in any way violate the guarantees provided under the Convention; and (ii) the promulgation of norms and the development of practices conducive to effective observance of those guarantees. Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 207; Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, supra, footnote 141, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru, supra, para. 99. 157 37