treatment (Articles 5(1) and 5(2)), and to personal liberty (Article 7(1)), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 100. Likewise, the State's behavior constitutes a violation of the obligation not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, as provided for in Article I (a) of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Fredy Núñez Naranjo. VII.2 RIGHT TO THE TRUTH AND IMMEDIATE SEARCH OBLIGATIONS FOR THE DISAPPEARED PERSON132 AND INVESTIGATION, PROSECUTION, AND PUNISHMENT OF THOSE WHO COMMIT THE CRIME OF FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS133 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 101. The Commission considered that an immediate search and investigation was not activated to locate the alleged victim, despite the fact that, given the indications that it could be a case of forced disappearance, there should have been a swift and thorough response in the first hours after becoming aware of the situation. In this regard, the Commission stated that: (i) there is no record of "any immediate search efforts conducted in the first few days after the incident to locate the alleged victim"134; (ii) "the acknowledgment of the jail from which the alleged victim was extracted took place nine months after the events, so no material damage was found nor could the use of force at the time he was removed from the jail be determined"; (iii) "there is no record that the State conducted an inspection in the cells where Fredy Núñez Naranjo could have been held, despite the Central Board reporting that the alleged victim was taken to a cell in the Puñachizag Community, but that, he escaped from it by force"; (iv) "there is no record that due to this fact, the Boards members were subjected to a criminal proceeding, even though they explicitly acknowledged having taken Mr. Núñez and having detained him in a cell"; (v) "the evidence obtained during the investigative stage did not comply with the Organic Law of the Public Prosecutor,” which resulted in a "provisional stay of proceedings,” which "prevented the consideration of the evidence [obtained]"; (vi) no measure was ordered "to rectify the mentioned omissions and restart the process"; (vii) "in the prosecutor’s investigation stage [of such process], no evidence was incorporated,” and (viii) that "on October 18, 2004, the Fourth Criminal Court reported that since the decision of provisional stay of proceedings, no procedure has been received from the prosecution,” which shows that "no avenue was activated to reverse the decision of a provisional stay of proceedings." 102. The Commission added that, as identified by expert Galvis Patiño, "the investigation and search process were not carried out in accordance with international standards in the field." Additionally, "[f]or 16 years there was no type of procedural action and [it was] only in 2018, when the case was already before the C[ommission ...], that the investigation was reopened and is currently in the preliminary inquiry stage." This has involved an "unreasonable delay" as well as a "lack of information on the current status of the search plan for Mr. Núñez Naranjo's whereabouts." The Commission pointed out that the investigation "has been extremely deficient and has generated a situation of total impunity with no one prosecuted or convicted to date, after Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. Article I (b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 134 He pointed out that, although police reports were issued that same day, these "should not necessarily be considered a search procedure"; also, that in the police reports of August and October 2001, it is not recorded what "specific procedures were carried out, beyond taking statements." 132 133 -30-