the circumstances in which they had been perpetrated, it could be inferred that the purpose of the said acts of violence had been to punish and intimidate him. Hence, the Commission considered that the said acts of violence constituted torture, in the terms of Article 5(2) of the American Convention. The Commission also alleged the violation of the right to life recognized in Article 4 of the American Convention and indicated that the fact that a person is disappeared over an extended period of time and in a context of violence is sufficient to conclude that the person was deprived of his life. In this regard, the Commission noted that the presumed victim was a civilian, in application of Article 29(b) and taking into account the alleged context of armed conflict in which the alleged facts of this case took place. Moreover, Article 13 of Protocol II establishes the principle of the protection of the civilian population. Lastly, the Commission considered that enforced disappearance seeks to eliminate the juridical existence of the individual in order to remove him from the protection of the law and the justice provided by the latter, so that the individual can be deprived of his rights with impunity, removing him from any possible judicial protection. Consequently, the Commission affirmed that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to juridical personality established in Article 3 of the Convention. The Commission concluded that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was the victim of enforced disappearance committed by members of the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base who detained him on April 28, 1991. Accordingly, it affirmed that the Peruvian State had failed to comply with the obligations to respect and to ensure the rights established in Articles 3 (juridical personality), 4(1) (life), 5(1) and 5(2) (personal integrity) and 7 (personal liberty) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect and to ensure the rights, and the obligation established in Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 161. In relation to Article 7 of the Convention, based on the Court’s judgment in the case of La Cantuta, the representatives maintained that, since detention is a stage that precedes the victim’s disappearance, it is unnecessary to make a detailed analysis of the detention in relation to each of the corresponding guarantees established in this article. In the instant case, Jeremías Osorio Rivera was detained by agents of the Peruvian State, an act that constituted the first stage in his subsequent enforced disappearance, a situation that led to the conclusion that this act was illegal, arbitrary and without strict respect for the guarantees established in the said article. The representatives also noted that the presumed victim was not allowed to eat the food that had been brought for him. In addition, they indicated that, during the transfer, the presumed victim’s head was covered by a hood, even though everyone knew who the detainee was. In this regard, they argued that this was to hide the ill-treatment he had suffered. The representatives asserted that, according to the statements taken during the domestic investigation, Jeremías Osorio Rivera’s face had been hit. Lastly, they concluded that the State had violated Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this international instrument to the detriment of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to life, the representatives asserted that the State had violated the right to life of Jeremías Osorio Rivera by failing to comply with the obligation to respect and to ensure this right, as a result of the incomplete investigation into the enforced disappearance, facts that constitute a violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) to the detriment of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to juridical personality, the representatives indicated that the circumstances of the case made it impossible for Jeremías Osorio Rivera to exercise his rights and, to this date, keep his family members in total uncertainty about the presumed victim’s whereabouts and his legal status. As indicated above, the representatives argued that the State had violated Article 3 of the American Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. In sum, the representatives concluded that the State is responsible for the alleged enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, owing to the supposed acts of the members of the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base and, accordingly, it is responsible for the violation of Articles 7, 5, 4, and 3 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this international 59