19 remedy to be ineffective.” The State, when mentioning the "formalized, processed and closed procedures" of the instant case, referred to the inadmissibility of the habeas corpus petition filed by Mr. Anzualdo Vicuña, which, pursuant to Article 6(3) of Act 23.506, may only be admissible if the plaintiff opts to institute proceedings "in the general jurisdiction.” Likewise, the State pointed out that Kenneth’s father filed an appeal against such decision, which came to be “unfavorable.” Finally, the State concluded that “[a]ll those complaints filed with the different instances, that is, with the police, the prosecutor and the court, demonstrate the respect for the right to an effective judicial oversight, respect for due process and other rights enshrined in [Article] 139 of the 1993 Political Constitution, inasmuch as up to date the investigative stage has not ended.” 54. Moreover, the Commission and the representatives claimed that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to humane integrity of Kenneth Anzualdo, under the terms of Article 5 of the Convention in relation to Article 1(1) therein, and they indicated that the deprivation of liberty caused him moral and mental distress. They considered that it is reasonable to assume that Kenneth was violently interrogated and tortured during the period of time he remained in the basements, according to said modus operandi. The State did not specifically refer to these allegations. 55. Furthermore, the Commission and the representatives alleged that the State failed to comply with its obligation to respect and guarantee the right to life of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro, in violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) therein. Specially, they considered that the circumstances in which Kenneth was detained, the lack of prompt investigations into the facts, the lapse of time without information about the whereabouts of Mr. Anzualdo Castro, the knowledge about said systematic and widespread practices at the time of the events and the criminal order for trial to commence, suggest that the alleged victim was deprived of life in violation of the duty to respect the right to life. Furthermore, they pointed out, considering that he was under the State’s custody after being abducted by state agents, that the State should have offered, in its role of guarantor, explanations about the whereabouts of the victim and should have conducted a prompt investigation into the facts, which the State did not do, failing to comply with its obligation to guarantee the right to life. The Commission, in addition, alleged that “it is valid and logical to conclude that the victim was deprived of life by means of an extra-judicial execution perpetrated by State agents” therefore, his killing is not an isolated incident but "an extrajudicial disappearance” (sic) in the context of said pattern. The State did not specifically refer to these allegations. 56. In turn, the Commission alleged the violation of the right to juridical personality of Mr. Anzualdo Castro, embodied in Article 3 of the American Convention. It held that “it is correct and necessary to include an analysis of the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention in the [...] concept of multiple violations of human rights to which a case of forced disappearance gives rise.” The Commission based its position on the idea that the juridical personality is a fundamental requirement for the enjoyment of all basic freedoms, inasmuch as this right grants the individual the right to exercise and enjoy rights; the capacity to take on obligations and standing. According to the Commission, the precise object of forced disappearance is to remove the individual from his due protection and “to operate outside the law.” Therefore, the Commission found that through the State’s refusal to recognize that Mr. Anzualdo Castro was in its custody and not informing about his situation or whereabouts, the State created a “legal vacuum” that eliminated the juridical personality of the alleged victim