liberty. 147 To the contrary, the rights established in Articles 7(1) and 7(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, have been violated. 148 101. The deprivation of liberty that initiates a forced disappearance, whatsoever its form, is contrary to Article 7 of the American Convention. In the instant case, it has been shown that Edgar Fernando García was arrested on February 18, 1984, during a “Patrol and Cleansing Operation” conducted by the National Police in Guatemala City (supra para. 66). From the information provided by the parties, the Court observes that there is no clear information as to where Mr. García was taken after his capture. According to the information found in the Historical Archive of the National Police concerning the planning of this operation, the people who were captured in the area where Mr. García was detained were taken to the Fourth Unit of the National Police, 149 while the CEH, based on a referential witness, established that Mr. García had been “transferred to the Fifth Unit of the PN” (supra para. 68). 150 Despite these different versions, the Court observes that Mr. García was arrested and taken to a unit of the National Police, where he remained in the hands of State agents. In addition, according to information received by Mrs. Montenegro and the CEH, Mr. García was seen by at least two witnesses in unofficial detention centers and was alive until December 1984. 151 In sum, the Court finds that Edgar Fernando García’s detention impaired his liberty in the broadest sense of Article 7(1) of the Convention because, since the date of his arrest and although more than 28 years have passed, his whereabouts remain unknown. 102. The Court recalls that the State has a special position of guarantor of the rights of those detained; 152 hence, the deprivation of liberty in legally-recognized centers and the existence of detainee records represent essential safeguards, inter alia, against forced disappearance. 153 A contrario sensu, setting up and maintaining secret detention centers constitutes per se failure to comply with the obligation to ensure rights, because it directly violates the rights to personal liberty, personal integrity, life, and juridical personality. 154 This principle, which the Court reiterates constantly, is established in Article XI of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 147 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 53, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 178. 148 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra, para. 54, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 178.. 149 In this regard, witness Velia Murallas Bautista stated at the public hearing in this case that, according to records found in the Historical Archive of the National Police, there was “an abnormal presence of police commanders at the headquarters of the Fourth Unit from February 19 to 23, 1984.” In this regard, she explained that “the Director General of the National Police […] made two visits to the premises of the Fourth Unit, specifically on Tuesday 21 and Wednesday 22 February 1984. Also, the Inspector General of the National Police made seven visits to the premises of the Fourth Unit, specifically on Sunday 19, Tuesday 21, Wednesday 22 and Thursday 23; on the 21st, 22nd and 23rd, he went twice each day.” Testimony given by Velia Murallas Bautista before the InterAmerican Court during the public hearing in this case. 150 The CEH classified as “referential witnesses” those persons who “knew of the version from victims or from other direct witnesses, because they occupied a social position that gave them privileged access to knowledge of the context in which the events occurred, [and who] provided the CEH with important information for verification of the testimonies.” Cf. CEH, supra, volume IV, p. 53, para. 111. 151 Cf. Complaint filed by Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom before the PDH on January 22, 1988 (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome I, annex 16, folios 212 and 213), and CEH, supra, volume VI, p. 148. 152 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 177. 153 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 63, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 177. Similarly, Cf. Article XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 154 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 63, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 77. 37