officials or their acquiescence, and c) refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty and disclose the fate and whereabouts of the person. 106 These elements have also been identified in the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons; 107 the Rome Statute; 108 the definitions of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; 109 the case law of the European Court of Human Rights; 110 and the decisions of various international bodies. 111 Moreover, this Court has discussed cases of forced disappearance in Colombia on different occasions. 112 72. Specifically, this Court has established that because deployed military members are in a situation analogous to a deprivation of liberty, the standards set in the case law with respect to deprivation of liberty apply to them. 113 The Court has established that the State is the guarantor and custodian of military service members because the latter have their rights and liberties restricted or limited. 114 Thus, with respect to deployed active duty members of the armed forces, the State has the duty to (i) safeguard the health and wellbeing of the active duty members; (ii) ensure that the training practices and methods do not cause more suffering than is necessary and inherent to that work; and (iii) provide satisfactory and credible explanations for any health problems the military members may have while in service. Accordingly, this Court has held that the State shall be considered responsible for any harm to personal integrity suffered by an individual who has been under the authority and control of state officials, as is the case in military service. 115 73. The Court finds in this case that by acknowledging its responsibility, the State accepted the facts as described in the Merits Report (supra paras. 16, 25, and 31), which stated that government officials were involved in the disappearance of Mr. Tabares Toro on December 28, 1997, while he was encamped with the “Tigre” Company of Anti-guerrilla Battalion 20 of the National Army, near the Municipality of San Juanito, Meta. 74. The Court confirms that at the time of the events, Mr. Tabares Toro was a soldier in the “Tigre” Company of Anti-guerrilla Battalion 20 of the National Army of Colombia. The arguments of the parties and the Commission indicate that Óscar lván Tabares was under the authority of the State, as he was subject to the army’s control and discipline. In this context, and in view of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, the Court holds that the State was in the role of a guarantor with respect to Mr. Tabares Toro and that those involved in his forced disappearance were government officials. Moreover, the State still has not provided satisfactory information on his whereabouts. 75. All of the above entails a violation of Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, according to which “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake: Not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons [...].” 106 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97, and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 75. 107 Cf. Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons. Article II. 108 Cf. Rome Statute. Article 7(1)(i). 109 Cf. Human Rights Council. Report of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances. Best practices on enforced disappearances in domestic criminal legislation A/HRC/16/48/Add.3, December 28, 2010, paras. 21–32. 110 Cf. ECHR, Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], No. 25781/94, Judgment of May 10, 2001, paras. 132–134 and 147–148, and ECHR, Varnava et al. v. Turkey [GC], Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 y 16073/90, January 10, 2008, paras. 184–186. 111 Cf. Human Rights Committee, Nydia Erika Bautista de Arellana vs. Colombia (Communication No. 563/1993), UN. Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993, November 13, 1995, paras. 8(3) to 8(6), and Human Rights Committee, Messaouda Grioua and Mohamed Grioua v. Algeria (Communication No. 1327/2004), UN Doc. CCPR/C/90/D/1327/2004, July 10, 2007, para. 7(2), 7(5)–7(9). 112 Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 31, and Case of the Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 27, 2022. Series C No. 455. 113 Cf. Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2015. Series No. 338, para. 123. 114 Cf. Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 119. 115 Cf. Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 124, and Case of Ortiz Hernández et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 22, 2017. Series C No. 338, para. 107. 19