68 231. According to proven facts, Hernando Castaño, Octavio Gallego and Orlando Muñoz were taken into custody on July 9, 1996 and to date their whereabouts are unknown. Regarding Mr. Castaño Castaño, the Commission has statements mentioning that, before this incident, various members of the army were asking where they could locate the child Andrés Suárez Cordero, who was living at home. Regarding the identity of the indivuals that took into custody Messrs. Gallego and Muñoz, the IACHR has statements pointing out that military personnel were very close to the place where the incidents took place. The IACHR also observes that a witness identified the persons who took into custody Mr. Gallego as soldiers because they subsequently saw them dressed as soldiers and wearing insignia in an army platoon. 232. On the basis of a joint review of these elements, as well as the context in which the incidents in Vereda La Esperanza took place, the Commission deems that military agents collaborated with the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio to execute the forced disappearance of Hernando Castaño, Octavio Gallego and Orlando Muñoz. As a result, the IACHR concludes that the State of Colombia violated the rights to personal liberty, personal integrity, life, and recognition as a person before the law, as enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention in connect with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument; as well as article I.a) of the Inter-American Convention on The Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Hernando Castaño, Octavio Gallego and Orlando Muñoz. 6.8. Andrés Suárez Cordero 233. According to proven facts, after the disappearance of his parents on June 22, 1996, Andrés Suárez stayed home alone in the place they were renting and afterwards lived two weeks and a half in the residence of Hernando Castaño. Afterwards, on July 9, he was abducted and arrested. The Commission deems that these incidents entailed separation and removal from the custody of his parents, which, as indicated by the Court, involves undermining his right to personal liberty, in the broadest sense of Article 7.1 of the American Convention.352 The illegal abduction of the biological parents of a child jeopardizes the child’s life, survival and development,353 the latter interpreted in its broadest sense, embracing the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral, psychological and social development.354 234. Furthermore, the Commission observes that the child was taken to the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio and grew up with the daughter of Ramón Isaza, Idelfa Isaza. The IACHR observes that the last available information refers to the adoption proceedings that Idelfa Isaza had filed and that at the public hearing, according to the voluntary confession made by Ramón Isaza in October 2008, he had been called by the name of Bryan Andrés Balbuena Isaza. 352 I/A Court H.R., Case of Contreras and others v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, paragraph 84. 353 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, paragraph 131; Case of Contreras and others v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, paragraph 90. 354 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 5, General measures of implementation for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Articles 4 and 42 and paragraph 6 of Article 44). November 27, 2003, paragraph 12.