disappearance of trade unionists at a particular period in the armed conflict and takes precisely all those elements into account. 135. The account concerning a jailbreak as a result of a FARC attack on the jail is only supported by the statements of the very security agents who were possibly involved and the existence of "subversive propaganda" leaflets. Apart from the lack of sufficient elements of proof, the Commission cannot help but notice a number of points that detract from that version’s credibility. The State has not disputed that the municipality of Pueto Nare was heavily militarized at the time of the events or that the jail in Puerto Nare was located a few meters from facilities of both the Bárbula Battalion and the police. Therefore, the Commission finds it reasonable to assume that an attack of the sort that would have enabled four people to escape from the jail would have led to at least some kind of confrontation with the police. There is no information whatsoever of such a situation. 136. Thus, on one hand, the Commission has an account of State acquiescence in the disappearance of Mr. Isaza Uribe from Puerto Nare jail, which is consistent with the various contexts that existed concurrently and coincided not only with the time of the disappearance but also with the area where it occurred. On the other hand, the Commission has an account of a putative jailbreak based exclusively on some leaflets and the statements of state agents who were possibly involved, which is at odds with the absence of a confrontation, bearing in mind the undisputed fact that Puerto Nare was heavily militarized and that there were both police and military facilities a few meters distance from the jail. The Commission notes that several elements that suggested the improbability of the jailbreak account as well as the possibility that the leaflets were left by the paramilitaries as a red herring were suggested to the domestic authorities in several statements, and yet there is no record of any line of investigation into that possibility. 137. Given the failure on the part of the State to meet the burden of proof necessary to refute its responsibility for what happened to Mister Isaza Uribe, the Commission considers that the contextual elements, indicia, and circumstantial evidence acquire special weight. Therefore, the Commission finds that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that there was state acquiescence in Mister Isaza Uribe's disappearance. To conclude otherwise under the circumstances in this case would be to allow the State to benefit from its failure to discharge its duty to investigate. 138. Finally, as regards denial of detention and concealment, the Commission notes that Mr. Isaza Uribe's family said that when they made inquiries about their loved one with different authorities, they were told that he had escaped. The available information also suggests that the investigations centered on that hypothesis. In the framework of the action for direct reparation, even the Council of State inclined to assume the escape hypothesis as true without considering all the above-cited contextual elements and the indicia of possible state acquiescence. On the contrary, the Commission found particularly troubling the Council of State’s consideration that it was up to the claimant to prove the State's participation in a case such as this, when inter-American case law indicates the reverse: the obligation is on the State to refute evidence of its responsibility in matters concerning someone in its custody. Another relevant element with regard to concealment has to do with the information concerning witnesses' fear of reprisal for testifying. Although the Commission lacks detailed information to identify specific threats to witnesses, it is mindful that the prosecutor’s office was aware of the reluctance of potential witnesses to testify based on fear. However, there is no information of what steps were taken to identify the source of the fear and, consequently, adopt measures to ensure that the situation would not obstruct disclosure of the facts. As is examined below, the State took no steps whatever to protect those persons and secure their statements, and the facts remain undisclosed. Finally, the closure of the case for more than 13 years without the lines of inquiry regarding possible state acquiescence having been exhausted is a relevant factor insofar as the concealment requirement is concerned. 139. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the State did not supply a satisfactory explanation about what happened to Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe while he was in its custody and, therefore, it did not refute its responsibility. In such circumstances and in light of the available information, the Commission considers that there are sufficient elements to class the incident as a forced disappearance of a person carried out with the acquiescence of state agents. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the