62 134. It has also been proved that, despite the various domestic remedies used in order to clarify the facts, these were not effective to prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible (supra 121 m). Guatemala even accepted its international responsibility, stating that “it has still not been possible for the competent bodies to identify the persons or person criminally responsible for the unlawful acts that are the subject of this application.” 135. Now that it has been proved that the detention and disappearance of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez occurred and that they may be attributed to the State, the Court will examine these facts in the light of the American Convention. XI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 (RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY) 136. With regard to the violation of Article 7 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: a) the detention of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez by agents of the Guatemalan armed forces and his captivity in a clandestine center, without presenting him before the judicial authorities, violated the right established in Article 7 of the Convention and Article 6 of the Guatemalan Constitution. This is concluded from the statements of various witnesses who describe military installations where Velásquez was detained; b) on other occasions, the Commission has reached the conclusion that agents of the State have abducted persons and kept them prisoner in clandestine detention centers, located in installations of the armed forces, and this situation constitutes “a particularly serious form of arbitrary deprivation of liberty”. These actions of State agents are beyond the law and, due to their secret nature, may not be examined; and c) from the evidence in this case, it is proved that Bámaca Velásquez was alive in the hands of the Army up until at least May 1993, or even until August that year, without knowing the cause of his detention and in a place that was not “legally and publicly (destined to that end)”, which proves that he “was not detained in accordance with the laws of Guatemala, and this implies that Article 7.2 of the Convention has been violated.” 137. The State limited its defense to the assertion that “it has still not been possible to identify the persons or person criminally responsible for the unlawful acts against Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez] and, thus, clarify his disappearance” and, in consequence, it did not put forward any defense related to the violation of the right to personal liberty embodied in the American Convention, either at the procedural opportunity of answering the application or in its final arguments. * * 138. * Article 7 of the American Convention establishes, in this regard: