75. At the same opportunity, the Commission argued that, in cases previously adjudicated by the Court, as well as in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and in the rulings of the United Nations Committees, the existence of a conducive or favorable context for forced disappearance is a central element in establishing the responsibility of the State However, in this case, such context does not exist. Likewise, it argued that it occurred in a situation of force majeure since the police officers "lacked the physical and technical capacity to prevent and/or avoid the kidnapping [...] making it impossible to comply with the State's obligation to provide guarantees." 76. In addition, the State individually referred to the violations included in the Merits Report. The Commission pointed out that there was no violation of the right to juridical personality because "the rights of Mr. Fredy Núñez Naranjo were not suspended, his right to name, identity, and nationality was not restricted." On the contrary, he argued, "several procedures [of investigation and search] have been recorded with strict adherence to the identity of Mr. Fredy Núñez Naranjo." 77. It was concluded that there are no concrete indications that would suggest that Mr. Fredy Núñez's life was deprived of by the actions or acquiescence of state agents, nor has it been proven that the Peasant Defense Boards violated Fredy Núñez Naranjo's right to life. 78. The Commission also stated that there was no violation of the right to personal liberty because Mr. Núñez Naranjo's arrest by the police was legal and not arbitrary; the alleged victim knew the reasons for the arrest, was placed under the jurisdiction of the competent authority, and could also appeal the arrest. 79. Likewise, it opposed the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment as it considered that there was no forced disappearance, and it was not reported that the alleged victim had been subjected to prolonged isolation or lack of communication by the state agents who were guarding him. B. Considerations of the Court 80. This Court will now proceed to: 1) make general considerations about forced disappearance and the evidentiary guidelines that must be considered in relation to this violation of human rights; 2) evaluate the existing evidence in the case of the alleged forced disappearance of Fredy Núñez Naranjo, and 3) present its conclusions regarding the violations analyzed in this section. B.1 General considerations on forced disappearance and evidence 81. In its case law, the Court has repeatedly established that forced disappearance is a complex and multiple violation, which places the victim in a state of complete defenselessness99 and infringes various legal rights protected under the American Convention. In particular, this behavior results in the violation of the rights to juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity, and to personal liberty, set out in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Convention, respectively.100 Furthermore, the Court has stated that, if a State practices, permits, or tolerates an act of forced disappearance, it fails to fulfill the obligations set forth in Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced 99 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 59, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 452, para. 120. 100 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 150, 155158, 186 and 187, and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 17, 2022. Series C No. 467, para. 87. -24-