68. Thirdly, the Commission stated that the refusal to acknowledge the detention or to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person came about because the lack of diligent action by the State made it possible to conceal the whereabouts of the alleged victim. Furthermore, the criminal proceeding was not aimed at determining the whereabouts of the alleged victim, but rather, it contributed to perpetuating the violation. 69. In its final written observations, the Commission emphasized that, as expert Galvis Patiño established during the hearing, acquiescence corresponds to the lowest degree of state participation in the international offense and that, in this case, it was apparently demonstrated through multiple indications. Thus, the Commission emphasized that no detailed information was provided by the State regarding the manner in which the communities entered the police station, nor on how the police officers tried to prevent the victim's kidnapping, especially considering that, given the number of individuals involved, the State would have been aware that they were approaching. It was also emphasized that it was not proven that the individuals who gained access to the police station were armed or that the agents had requested reinforcements. The Commission added that, despite the fact that, in the hearing, the State claimed to have acted diligently because, after the kidnapping, police reports were issued on the same day, such actions do not account for immediate search efforts. 70. Similarly, the Commission pointed out that acquiescence is proven given that the investigation was extremely deficient. In the Commission's view, the situation of impunity more than 20 years after the disappearance of Mr. Núñez Naranjo, coupled with the State's partial acknowledgement of responsibility for violating the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, constitutes another element that suggests the State's acquiescence to the forced disappearance, as the Court held in the Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia.98 71. In their final written arguments, the representative asserted that the State violated Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention. Furthermore, they opposed the classification of force majeure used by the State regarding the circumstances under which Fredy Núñez Naranjo was kidnapped from the police station. 72. The State opposed the characterization of forced disappearance as alleged by the Commission. On this matter, the Commission indicated that, when they stormed the police station, the members of the Puñachizag community acted in a surprising and threatening manner against public premises, which led to the initiation of criminal proceedings against several individuals. The Commission argued that such actions were neither tolerated nor acquiesced to by the State. 73. In the framework of its final oral and written arguments, the State insisted that, in this case, a criminal offense occurred whose responsible parties are individuals belonging to the Puñachizag and Shaushi communities and emphasized that there is no evidence that they were linked to the Peasant Defense Boards. 74. In this regard, in the State’s final written arguments, it asserted that, at most, the State would be responsible for "a potential obligation of medium-level custody, taking into account the context of force majeure and unpredictability of the act, and due to the notable numerical superiority of the presence of the Shaushi and Puñachizag community members who violently extracted Mr. Núñez Naranjo from the police station." Cf. I/A Court H.R. Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 363, para. 143. 98 -23-