7. According to the judgement, during the investigations at the domestic level, seven members of the Quero Canton community were preventively detained in relation to the commission of the crime of kidnapping against Mr. Fredy Núñez Naranjo. In response to these arrests, on June 30, 2002, the Central Committee of Peasant Boards of Quero Canton issued a press release requesting the release of the accused parties. The press release states that Mr. Núñez Naranjo was detained in Peasant Boards jail cells as part of the role that these boards have assumed in combating crime in the canton. The press release refers to the relationship between the boards and the police and assumes that the State will respond favorably to the request to release the accused parties to avoid confrontations: The only crime we have committed is living off our work and one way or another fighting criminals (...) although it is true that the peasants, tired of enduring the abuses, thefts, and murders committed by Fredy Marcelo Núñez Naranjo along with his gang of highway robbers, had taken him to the Peasant Board jail cells (...) certain that you will respond favorably to this request and not have any issues to that effect, because otherwise, the high level of respect we have for the authorities and the Police, we would not want to get into trouble or any confrontation. 7 On July 31, 2002, the accused parties were released on the grounds that, while there was evidence of a crime, the collective nature of the group of people that perpetrated the criminal behavior prevented the individual participants from being singled out. 8 8. Likewise, as indicated by the Court in its judgment, the relatives of Fredy Núñez Naranjo received threats from members of the Puñachisag and Shaushi communities who had connections to the Central Committee of Peasant Boards. 9 9. In examining the merits of the case and addressing the issue of Ecuador's international responsibility for the disappearance of Fredy Núñez Naranjo, the Court characterized the enforced disappearance as a continuous act that is constituted when the following occur concurrently: a) deprivation of liberty; b) the direct intervention of State agents or their acquiescence; and c) the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the person in question. 10 10. As it did in its judgment in the Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, the Court reiterated its position regarding the attribution of state responsibility Cf. Case of Núñez Naranjo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 58. "On July 31, 2002, the Second Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Tungurahua granted the protection of freedom, arguing that, although there were sufficient indications to determine that a public action offense existed, there was a lack of clear and precise indications to prove that the accused parties were the perpetrators or accomplices to the crime, because, in the opinion of the Chamber, the information referred to a group of people, which prevented the individual participants from being singled out. [F15] [F81 evidence]" Cf. Judgement, para. 59. 9 "(...) It is also noted that Marcia and Silvia Núñez Naranjo, as well as their respective families, were "threatened with being evicted from their homes were they to report the incident." According to the same report, these threats were allegedly made by "members of the Puñachisag and Shaushi Community, who are led by [RBV], who serves as the President of the Central Peasant Board of Quero Canton." Cf. Case of Núñez Naranjo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 55. 10 Cf. Case of Núñez Naranjo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 83. 7 8 3