injuries suffered on that same date by María Gregoria Naranjo and Marcia Núñez Naranjo, mother and sister of Fredy Núñez Naranjo. 64. The alleged violations of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection resulting from the insufficiency of state actions aimed at investigating what happened to Fredy Núñez Naranjo and punishing those responsible will not be examined in this section as they have been acknowledged by the State (supra paras. 25 and 31). 65. The Court will now address, based on the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and taking into consideration, where relevant, the partial acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State (supra paras. 25 and 31), the alleged violations of: a) the rights to juridical personality, to life, to humane treatment, and to personal liberty, as well as the obligations not to practice, not to allow, nor to tolerate forced disappearance, to the detriment of Fredy Núñez Naranjo; b) the obligations to search for the presumed victim and to punish those responsible for the forced disappearance of persons, to the detriment of Fredy Núñez Naranjo and his relatives, as well as the right to truth, based on the principle iura novit curia, to the detriment of the relatives of Fredy Núñez Naranjo; c) the right to humane treatment, to the detriment of the relatives of Fredy Núñez Naranjo; d) the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, to the detriment of María Gregoria Naranjo and Marcia Núñez Naranjo. VII.1 RIGHTS TO JURIDICAL PERSONALITY,93 TO LIFE,94 TO HUMANE TREATMENT,95 TO PERSONAL LIBERTY,96 AND OBLIGATION NOT TO PRACTICE, PERMIT, OR TOLERATE THE FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS97 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 66. The Commission affirmed that Fredy Núñez Naranjo was a victim of forced disappearance, as the elements characteristic of this violation established in the Court’s case law are present. Firstly, the Commission considered that the deprivation of liberty is proven since the Police arrested the alleged victim on July 15, 2001 and, on that same date, he was taken out of the jail where he was located and led to the community of Puñachizag and then to the community of Shaushi, after which his whereabouts have been unknown. Secondly, regarding the direct intervention of state agents or their authorization, support, or acquiescence, the Commission emphasized that there is no dispute that the kidnapping was carried out by the Peasant Defense Boards and argued that these "ac[ted] with the acquiescence of the State." 67. Regarding this last aspect, in its final written observations, the Commission stated that "at no time during the proceedings before the inter-American system[,] the [Commission] has compared the actions of the Peasant Defense Boards with paramilitary groups "nor has it endeavored to establish a historical context of disappearances perpetrated by the mentioned group at the time of the events. However, the Commission emphasized that, according to the evidence, "some of the individuals involved in the victim's abduction, transfer to the community, and subsequent disappearance and concealment are members of the Peasant Boards." 93 94 95 96 97 Cf. Article 3 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. Cf. Article 4 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. Cf. Article 5 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. Cf. Articles 7 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. Cf. Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. -22-