humane treatment and to life, even on the assumption that they are unable to demonstrate the acts of torture or deprivation of life of the person in the case in point.77 90. As regards the right to humane treatment specifically, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has acknowledged that the forced disappearance of persons is a violation of that right, since “the sole fact of prolonged isolation and forced noncommunication represents cruel and inhumane treatment […] in violation of paragraphs 1 and 2 of that article.”78 The Court has specifically established that it is clear that all aspects of the integrity of victims of this practice have been violated.79 91. With specific regard to the right to life, in accordance with the Court’s case law, the practice of disappearances has frequently entailed execution of the detainees in secrecy, without a trial, followed by the hiding of the body to remove any material trace of the crime and to ensure absolute impunity, which represents a brutal violation of the right to life, recognized in Article 4 of the Convention.80 This violation also results from the extreme risk to the life of victims implied by forced disappearance. 92. Similarly, in cases of forced disappearance of persons, the Court has stated that it is not necessary to conduct a detailed analysis of detention in relation to each of the guarantees established in Article 7 of the American Convention. This is so because when it is proven that deprivation of liberty is a prior step to disappearance, it is then unnecessary to determine whether the victims were informed of the reasons for their detention, if it occurred outside of the reasons and conditions established in legislation in force at the time of the events, or whether the act of detention was unreasonable, unforeseeable, or lacking in proportionality.81 This is true because upon analyzing a presumed forced disappearance, account must be taken of the fact that deprivation of liberty is only the beginning of the conduct involving a complex violation prolonged over time until the fate and whereabouts of the victim are established.82 2. Analysis of the present case 93. In view of the foregoing, in this section the Commission will examine whether the case of Walter Munárriz Escobar contains the elements comprising forced disappearance of persons, in the following order: i) Deprivation of liberty and the participation of state agents; and ii) Denial of deprivation of liberty or refusal to provide information on [the victim’s] fate or whereabouts. 2.1 Deprivation of liberty and the participation of state agents 94. In the case at issue, there is no dispute regarding the fact that on March 20, 1999 Walter Munárriz Escobar was arrested at “Los Manolos” Hotel by police personnel and taken to the Lircay police station, where he was deprived of liberty. Thus the first element of forced disappearance has been met. 77 See: Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras, supra note 24, para. 175; Case of Ticona Estrada vs. Bolivia, supra nota 23, para. 59, and Case of Anzualdo Castro Vs. Peru, supra note 44, para. 85. 78 Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 156 and 187; Case of del Penal Miguel Castro Castro. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 25 November, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 323; Inter-American Court. Case of Ticona Estrada et al Vs. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 58. 79 Inter-American Court. Case of Ticona Estrada et al Vs. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 27 November, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 58. 80 Inter-American Court, Case of 19 Comerciantes Vs. Colombia. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 154; Case of Bámaca Velásquez Vs Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 130. 81 Inter-American Court. Case of La Cantuta Vs. Peru. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 109. Inter-American Court. Case of Ticona Estrada et al Vs. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 56. 82 20