26 were mere indicators that one of the cadavers found belonged to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas.”87 Moreover, the Commission alleged that State authorities had presented “a series of versions on [the] fate and whereabouts” of Mr. Rainer Ibsen that “had the purpose of misinforming on the truth” […],” and that, afterwards, they delivered “[his] remains to a civil society organization without giving his next of kin an official explanation” in that regard. According to the Commission, Mr. Ibsen Cardenas’s next of kin still have no information as to the events that occurred and do not know the exact date and circumstances surrounding his death. Therefore, it requested the Court to declare that the State violated Articles I and XI of the Convention on Forced Disappearance to the detriment of Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas. 77. Furthermore, and in view of the foregoing, the Commission alleged the violation of Articles 7, 5, 4, and 3 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, because “he was deprived of his liberty in clandestine detention centers […] during several months[,] in custody of members of the Department for Political Order, incommunicado and as a political prisoner due to his alleged link with the National Liberation Army[,] in a context of [...] unlawful and arbitrary detentions followed by torture, extrajudicial executions and/or forced disappearance of persons who had been identified as dangerous to national security or as opposing the regime of then-President Hugo Banzer Suárez.” Likewise, it maintained that even though “[t]he passage of time and the lack of diligence on the part of the authorities charged with investigating the facts and identifying the remains of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas in a timely manner [impeded] the availability of information regarding the specific acts to which [he] was subjected,” the fact that Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas was deprived of his liberty in Achocalla, a center “where the practice of torture was habitual,” and later disappeared proves that he was placed “in a situation of vulnerability and lack of protection that affected his physical, mental, and moral integrity.” 78. On the other hand, the Commission asserted that “[t]he location, examination, and identification of the remains of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, as well as the testimonies of persons who assert that they saw him in the custody of agents of the State, demonstrate that […] he died at the hands of State security agents, on a date and under circumstances yet to be determined, as the result of at least three gunshot wounds to the head.” It emphasized that "the fact that there is […] evidence regarding the death of the [alleged] victim does not lead to a change in the understanding of the acts perpetrated against him as forced disappearance.” Finally, the Commission alleged that the disappearance of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas “had the objective of depriving him of his juridical personality [and leaving] him out of the legal and institutional order” so as to make it impossible for him or his next of kin to seek judicial protection, achieving impunity in this manner. 79. The representatives agreed with the arguments set forth by the Commission and requested the Court to declare the State of Bolivia responsible for the violation of the same rights and non-compliance with the same provisions alleged by the Commission. 87 The Commission indicated that, “[t]he documentation submitted by the State to ground its interpretation of the facts is a 2008 report by [… ASOFAMD] to the Ministry of Justice and news articles.” According to the Commission, “the evidence in the case file indicates that the names of the persons allegedly found were made public without any explanation as to how they were identified over a decade after they had disappeared.” In this regard, it specified that “[t]he news articles submitted by the State referred to irregularities in the lists and names and publicized that some of the registries had been found in pieces.” Likewise, the Commission stated that according to the testimony of Mrs. Delia Cortez, witness proposed by the State, “we have no knowledge of protocols to ensure that the integrity of the remains were being preserved in that process so as to facilitate their subsequent identification.” Thus, “the only criterion considered in order to state that one of the persons found was Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas was the name that appeared on the alleged individualized grave found next to a mass grave.”