31 A. Arguments of the parties 82. The Inter-American Commission indicated that the practice of enforced disappearance is a crime against humanity, and that the present case “covers the particular historical significance of the facts that occurred in a context of systematic practices of arbitrary detentions, torture, executions, and enforced disappearances perpetrated by the security forces of the military government, where the state agents […] used the official investiture and resources offered by the State to [carry out] the disappearances of the members of the Guerrilha do Araguaia.” Except in a few initial cases of arrest and torture, all the detained members of the Guerrilla were disappeared. The perpetrators hid all the evidence of their crimes and escaped all punishment; “attempting to create ‘a legal limbo’ implemented via the State’s refusal to recognize that the victims were under its custody, or providing contradictory information regarding the whereabouts, intentionally impairing the victims from exercising their rights, and keeping the next of kin in an information gap regarding their whereabouts or situation.” Although the Inter-American Commission valued the acknowledgement of responsibility for the enforced disappearances carried out at a domestic level and the payment of certain compensations, it highlighted that the next of kin of the disappeared persons remain without minimum information regarding the events and the whereabouts of their loved ones, with almost forty years having passed since the events took place. Based on the foregoing, it requested the Court to establish that the State violated the right to juridical personality, life, and personal integrity and liberty of the disappeared persons, enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention, respectively, in relation to the general obligation to respect rights, enshrined in Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 83. The representatives noted that the extermination of the Guerrilla was part of a pattern of repression, persecution, and systematic and generalized elimination of the political opposition to the Brazilian dictatorship, and marked one of its bloodiest periods. Pursuant to the information available, a large number of alleged victims were under State custody at some point prior to their disappearance. The prolonged isolation and solitary confinement the alleged victims underwent constituted cruel and inhumane treatment. The modus operandi of the State agents in the detentions throughout the region, as well as in other enforced disappearances or arrests of the political opposition in Brazil, allows for the inference that the alleged victims were tortured during the period in which they were under State custody. The circumstances of the disappearance have not be ascertained, the bodily remains have not been located, identified, and delivered to their next of kin, and those responsible have not been investigated, prosecuted, or punished. As a consequence, they asked the Court to declare the aggravated responsibility of the State and apply the legal consequences which ensue, for the violation to the right to juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity, and to personal liberty, enshrined respectively in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) of the same treaty. 84. In the public hearing, the State noted that “this is a historic moment, in which the Brazilian State reaffirms its responsibility for the violations of human rights which took place during the tragic episode known as the Guerrilha do Araguaia. This is also another opportunity to honor the deceased and the victims.” On the other hand, the State referred to various measures adopted, among many others, the Law No. 9.140/95 and the publication of the Report Derecho a la Memoria y a la Verdad [Right to Memory and the Truth]. Moreover, it did not present specific allegations regarding the facts of the enforced disappearances, which allegedly occurred in the present case. Nevertheless, it