51. Firstly, the Commission points to several contextual elements that are supported by many pieces of evidence. As was laid out in the findings of fact, as of 1995 and in implementing the plan known as the “1994 Chiapas Campaign Plan,” with the support of paramilitary organizations, the Mexican armed forces engaged in a counterinsurgent campaing aimed at regaining PRI control over Chiapas, identifying the EZLN and the PRD as “enemy forces,” with anyone who was either a member of or sympathizer of those groups or perceived as such, being at risk. In fact, pursuant to the findings of context, these individuals were targeted victims of serious human rights violations, as a consequence of this strategy. As to the type of violations that took place, forced disappearance was cited as one of several. Finally, with regard to context, the Commission notes that around 1998, when Antonio González disappeared, there continued to be a presence of the armed forces in predominantly indigenous areas as part of the counterinsurgent effort. 52. Secondly, there are several pieces of evidence linking Antonio González to said context. On the one hand, Antonio González was a native Ch’ol indigenous person from El Calvario, a community linked to the emergence of the EZLN and he was a known sympathizer and member of its grassroots support. On the other hand, Antonio also worked as manager of a cooperative store belonging to said community and was a member of the PRD. In his statements, Juan López even speculated once that Antonio González could have been murdered because he was a Zapatista. Based on the foregoing, the Commission can surmise that Antonio González was readily identifiable specifically as a member of the groups against whom the repression and counterinsurgent effort were aimed and, therefore, he was a clear target in this context. 53. However, as regards Juan López, the Commission notes that the case file contains references to this person being a member of the Paz y Justicia paramilitary group. These references were made by Antonio González’s wife and the petitioners themselves in this case, the Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Bartolomé de las Casas. Moreover, the EZLN Good Governance Junta attributes the disappearance of Antonio González to the paramilitary group Paz y Justicia, but does not directly identify Juan López as a member of the group or provide further support in that regard. The Commission finds that membership of his family to the PRI alone does not make it possible, even in the context described above, to infer Juan López’s membership in the paramilitary group. Thus, even though the Commission finds as proven fact the specific context making Antonio González a potential target of the violence perpetrated by the aforementioned paramilitary group, with the State’s acquiescence, the information available to it is insufficient to draw the conclusion, even based on circumstantial evidence, that the person with whom Mr. González left his residence voluntarily the day of his disappearance was a member of the Paz y Justicia paramilitary group. Consequently, an inference of the deprivation of liberty by a person acting with the acquiescence of the State cannot be made even circumstantially. 54. The Commission notes that the State did not provide an alternative hypothesis to the forced disappearance based on a diligent and effective investigation. While in certain cases,132 the Commission and the Court have assigned evidentiary value to serious and consistent indications of State responsibility when they are not investigated adequately, in the instant case the indication of State responsibility arising from the link between Juan López and the paramilitary group acting in the area with the acquiescence of the State, is based solely on the statements of the wife of Antonio González, without any other evidence of corroboration, even of a circumstantial nature. 133 Notwithstanding, the deficiencies in the investigation will be examined in the following section of the instant report. 55. In such circumstances, the Commission considers that there is no sufficient information to consider established the first two constituent elements of forced disappearance and, therefore, it will not proceed to examine the third one. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the Mexican State is not responsible for the violation of the rights established in Articles 3, 4.1, 5.1 and 5.2 and 7.1 of the American Convention to the detriment of Antonio González Méndez. IA Court of HR. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, pars. 95-97. 133 IA Court of HR. Case of Pacheco León et al v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017. Series C No. 342, pars. 152-153. 132 18