14. As illustrated supra, the judgment of the Inter-American Court attributes responsibility to the State for the enforced disappearance of Mr. Fredy Núñez Naranjo on the grounds that the victim's kidnapping occurred while he was under state custody, that is, it holds the Ecuadorian State accountable in its capacity as guarantor. While we share this perspective, we believe that the judgment should have also examined the State's responsibility in terms of its authorization, support, or acquiescence towards the conduct of non-state actors who are part of the factual framework of the instant case. 15. As a basic principle recognized by the International Community, the international responsibility of the State is primarily generated as a result of acts or omissions by any state power, body, or agent, regardless of their hierarchy, that violate international obligations. 14 As established by the Court in its case law, this principle is applicable to international obligations in the field of human rights. 16. States can also be internationally responsible for acts committed by individuals. As established by the Court in its case law, an illegal act that violates human rights and which is initially not directly attributable to a State "because it is the act of a private person or because the person responsible has not been identified, can lead to the international responsibility of the State, not because of the act itself, but because of the lack of due diligence to prevent the violation or to respond to it as required by the Convention." 15 Likewise, the Court has consistently ruled on the direct state responsibility for acts of third parties in cases where private groups act with state recognition or support, in many cases as aid or extension de facto of the authority of the Public Force in part of the national territory. Historically, these dynamics have been observed in contexts of armed actors or organized crime operating at various scales in sectors of the national territory with little presence of the police or Armed Forces. 16 17. In the instant case, the main line of investigation on the enforced disappearance of Fredy Núñez Naranjo is related to the actions of the Peasant Defense Boards in Quero Canton. These organizations are governed by the "Statutes of the Provincial Federation of Peasant Defense Boards of Tungurahua," approved on October 10, 1966, by the then interim president of Ecuador, Clemente Yerovi Indabaruru. The document states that the Defense Boards "will concer[n] themselves solely and exclusively with the defense of private property reconciled with its social function and the rights and interests of the peasants who form or belong to the different Peasant Boards associated with the Federation.” 17 It is worth mentioning that the law authorizes the existence of groups for the defense of private property, with state-granted legitimacy, since the Statute creating the Boards was the result of an Executive Agreement executed by an interim President, which has remained in effect dating back to 1966. 14 UN General Assembly, Res.56.83 Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, sp (2002), Article 4. 15 Cf. Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paras. 140-141. 16 Cf. Case of the 19 Merchants v. Colombia. supra paras. 118 and 124. See also Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 363, para. 141. 17 Art. 2 of the Statutes of the Provincial Federation of the Peasantry Defense Boards of Tungurahua. 5