38. Specifically, the State indicated that once the complaint was received, the National Police Inspector sent a telegram to all the competent administrative authorities ordering to start the search of the disappeared person. Said request was reiterated on December 17, 1990. 39. The State pointed out that the Police interviewed relatives of the disappeared, co-workers, the owner of the discotheque where the alleged victim was last seen, and the manager of a restaurant that was located near the discotheque. It also said that some in situ inspections were carried out and those who saw the alleged victim the day he was disappeared rendered statements to the police. 40. The State noted that, as a consequence to the inclusion of the alleged victim in the Report of the Truth Commission, an inquiry was launched to shed light on the events. In this context, genetic information from Mr. Garzón was taken, genetic information from the mother of the alleged victim -María Clorinda Guzmánwas obtained, and it acted in collaboration with Interpol, inter alia. 41. The State made reference to a new complaint filed by the relatives of the alleged victim on May 23, 2013 and indicated that it triggered an inquiry that year, which was accumulated with the previous one on January 2, 2014. Ecuador stated that currently the investigation is classified but that actions continue to be taken as part of it. 42. The Ecuadorian State also refuted the petitioner’s argument related to the lack of access to justice suffered by the relatives of the alleged victim, as it stated that remedies -such as habeas corpus- were available and instead, the relatives refrained from using them. It reiterated that the habeas corpus was an adequate and effective remedy to determine the whereabouts of the disappeared person. 43. The State sustained that it did not breach its obligation to respect nor did it breach its duty to adopt domestic legal provisions, for in this case the elements that constitute a forced disappearance are absent. 44. Ecuador alleged that it did not breach Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, as the events of this case do not constitute forced disappearance of persons and, in any case, said Treaty had not entered into force at the time of the events. 45. Finally, the State mentioned that it has a mechanism for victim’s reparation that is adequate in this case. Based on that, on the principle of complementarity, and on the Inter-American Court’s jurisprudence, Ecuador alleged that the IACHR should establish that it lacks jurisdiction to hear this case, as the Commission’s intervention would risk the reparation proceedings implemented by the Law for Reparation for Victims. IV. ESTABLISHED FACTS 46. The Commission considers it pertinent to recall that the jurisprudence of the Inter-American System has established that, for an international tribunal, the criteria for assessing evidence are less rigid than under domestic legal systems and has stated that it can “assess the evidence freely.”2 In that respect, both the Commission and the Inter-American Court have said that it “must apply an assessment of the evidence that takes into account the gravity of attributing international responsibility to a State and that, despite this, is able to create confidence in the truth of the facts that have been alleged.”3 The Court has established that “it is legitimate to use circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions to found a judgment, provided that conclusions consistent with the facts can be inferred from them.”4 2 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 127 and 128. IACHR, Report No. 25/15, 10.737, Merits. Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe and Family. Colombia. July 21, 2015, para.42 I/A Court H.R., Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 132. 3 4 I/A Court H.R., Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 134. 5