perpetrated118 or to conclude the configuration of this when the person was under state custody.119 B.2 Evaluation of the circumstances of the disappearance of Fredy Núñez Naranjo 88. The central dispute in the case is to determine whether a forced disappearance attributable to the State of Ecuador occurred. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that it is an undisputed fact that Fredy Núñez Naranjo was arrested by police officers and confined in a station under state control on July 15, 2001 (supra para. 42). Once in that place, he was kidnapped by inhabitants of the Puñachizag and Shaushi communities (supra para. 43), who included members of the Peasant Defense Boards of the Quero canton.120 After the kidnapping, Fredy Núñez Naranjo was taken to the communities, and ever since then, his whereabouts have been unknown (supra par. 45). 89. The State argued that the circumstances in which the kidnapping of Fredy Núñez Naranjo occurred constitute force majeure, as the sudden appearance of approximately 400 individuals in front of the police station made it impossible to resist the kidnapping of the alleged victim. In this regard, it stated that 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 guarantee" (supra para. 75). 90. The Court emphasizes that, due to its exceptional nature, force majeure121 places the burden on the party alleging it to prove the unforeseen, irresistible, and uncontrollable nature of the circumstances that qualify as constituting force majeure.122 Likewise, the acknowledgment of force majeure requires proving that these circumstances made it impossible to comply with the obligations of the party claiming such force majeure.123 In this case, the Court finds that the State's explanation of the events does not meet the previously indicated burdens to prove that force majeure was established, for the reasons that will be explained. Cf. Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, paras. 169 and 170, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 134. 119 Cf. Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 93. 120 According to this organization "[AV], [RBV], [BT], [LASBC], [FAJL], [EACV], [MUBS] [...] ar[e] innocent individuals of the [f]act [...] that they [a]re accused of, the only criminal offense they commi[t] is to live from [their] work and somehow fi[gh]t the offender." Cf. Official letter from the Central Board of Peasants No. 88-CJDCQ-2002 addressed to the Fiscal Minister of Tungurahua on June 30, 2002 (case file of evidence, page 39). 121 The Court points out that, in terms of the customary rules on the international responsibility of the State formulated by the United Nations International Law Commission, force majeure is a cause for excluding unlawfulness that is not applicable to the "act of a State that is not in conformity with an obligation arising from a mandatory rule of general international law." Cf. United Nations International Law Commission, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 26. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/spanish/ilc_2001_v2_p2.pdf. This Court has recognized that, given the particular severity of forced disappearance and the nature of the violated rights, and considering that it implies a gross abandonment of the essential principles on which the Inter-American Human Rights System is based, its prohibition and the corresponding duty to investigate and punish those responsible have reached the character of jus cogens. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 84 and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 78. 122 As established by the customary rules on international responsibility formulated by the United Nations International Law Commission, force majeure operates when there is "an irresistible force or of an unforeseen event, beyond the control of the State, making it materially impossible in the circumstances to perform the obligation"; the above, provided that, the situation is not due, solely or in combination with other factors, to the behavior of the State invoking it; or it has not assumed the risk of such a situation occurring. Cf. United Nations International Law Commission, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Article 23, pages. 80 to 83. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/publications/yearbooks/spanish/ilc_2001_v2_p2.pdf. 123 Cf. United Nations International Law Commission, Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts supra. 118 -27-