those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." 117. Article 27 of the same Convention establishes that: “Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honor, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity." And Article 29 adds that "The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred." 118. Article 32 expressly prohibits corporal punishment and torture, when it establishes that "The High Contracting Parties specifically agree that each of them is prohibited from taking any measure of such a character as to cause the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents." 119. With respect to aliens in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the Convention establishes their right to leave the territory in the following terms: "All protected persons who may desire to leave the territory at the outset of, or during a conflict, shall be entitled to do so, unless their departure is contrary to the national interests of the State. The applications of such persons to leave shall be decided in accordance with regularly established procedures and the decision shall be taken as rapidly as possible. Those persons permitted to leave may provide themselves with the necessary funds for their journey and take with them a reasonable amount of their effects and articles of personal use." 120. As one can see, at the time of the alleged facts in the instance case, there were special and general duties of the Ecuadorian State to provide protection for the civilian population that Ecuador did not fulfill in respect of Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand. Pursuant to Article 29.b of the American Convention118 and as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights pointed out in the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia case, "with regard to establishment of the international responsibility of the State in the instant case, the Court cannot set aside the existence of general and special duties of the State to protect the civilian population, derived from International Humanitarian Law."119 121. According to the established facts, Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand was the victim of a forced disappearance perpetrated by Ecuadorian army personnel who arrested him in Huaquillas on April 30, 1995. To this day his whereabouts are unknown. For that reason, and based on the foregoing considerations, the IACHR concludes that the Ecuadorian State failed to fulfill its obligations to respect and guarantee the rights established in articles 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 7 of the American Convention, in conjunction with article 1.1 of the same instrument, and it also violated article 1.a of the IACFDP, all to the detriment of Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand. 2. The right to recognition as a person before the law 122. As regards the right to recognition of juridical personality, the Commission recalls that this right is an essential and necessary prerequisite in order to hold and exercise all rights, since without it, a 118 Article 29(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights - Restrictions Regarding Interpretation: "No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: [...] b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party [...] 119 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paragraph 114. 28