refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to disclose the fate and whereabouts of the person concerned.215 151. In this case, as the established facts show, there are sufficient elements to believe that the Mr. Omeara Miraval’s deprivation of liberty on August 27, 1994, was committed by individuals who belonged to a paramilitary group that was operating in the area. In that respect, the first element of forced disappearance is met. 152. As to the involvement or acquiescence of state agents and concealment of the deed, the Commission finds that there is circumstantial evidence of the international responsibility of the State for the disappearance and later execution of Guillermo Omeara Miraval. 153. In first place, the fact that there are elements linking the illegal armed group led by Roberto Prada Gamarra to the disappearance and subsequent execution of Guillermo Omeara Miraval in itself constitutes circumstantial evidence of the State’s responsibility, given the above-describe context of collaboration by agents of the state with that paramilitary group (cf. supra par. 51). 154. Second, as regards the response of the State on being made aware of the disappearance by the complaint filed by his wife on August 28, 1994, the Commission notes that said response was utterly omissive to the extent that it is fair to infer that said omission was deliberate. The Commission recalls that it follows from inter-American jurisprudence that insofar as a missing person's report is concerned, the response of the State is inevitably linked to the protection of the life and well-being of the person reported missing. Whether the disappearance may have occurred at the hands of private citizens or at the hands of state agents is immaterial where duty of the State to render an immediate and exhaustive response is concerned. According to the Court's case law, “when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been disappeared, it is essential for prosecutorial and judicial authorities to take prompt and immediate action by ordering timely and necessary measures to determine the whereabouts of the victim or the place where he or she might be deprived of liberty.216 155. In this case, the Commission observes that after the State was made aware of the incident on August 28, 1994, by the wife of Manuel Guillermo Omeara, there is no evidence of any inquiries specifically intended to effectively investigate his whereabouts until September 6, 1994, when the Regional Prosecutor of Barranquilla opened the preliminary investigation. The only information available to the Commission is the statement of Jaime Antonio Omeara, who said that the man by the alias “Rambo,” who, as noted, was linked to the attack in which Mr. Omeara Carrascal was wounded, visited the family's home and said that an investigation was under way. 156. The Commission has no other information to attest that immediate steps were taken and followed up upon by the states with the aim of finding Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval alive, in spite of the fact that the nature of the reported facts should have made it abundantly clear to the state authorities that he was in a situation of extreme danger. In addition, the Commission finds it appropriate to note that, although Mr. Omeara Miraval's body was found on September 22, 1995, there is nothing in the record to show that that came about as a result of the inquiries made to find him. On the country, according to the information available, it was the result of an anonymous call. 157. In the opinion of the Commission, the lack of specific and effective steps to look for Mr. Omearal Miraval after his disappearance was reported constitutes in itself a violation of the duty to ensure his 215I/A Court H.R, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, par. 60. 216I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, par. 134; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par. 221; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 167. See, also, Matter of Natera Balboa regarding Venezuela. (Provisional Measures) Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 1, 2010, preambular par. 13. 38