58 185. Indeed, in this case the Court has confirmed the military authorities’ initial refusal to acknowledge the detention of the victims, as well as the fact that they concealed and altered information about what happened to them, despite the complaints and proceedings filed by their relatives and residents of the Santa Bárbara community, as well as by the organs in charge of the investigations. Moreover, the modus operandi used in this case to destroy the evidence supports this conclusion. In this regard, the Court is aware that human remains were recovered in 1991, 2009, 2010 and 2011 at the location where the bodies were dynamited and that, owing to various irregularities derived from the actions of the State authorities themselves, to date there is no certainty that the remains of the fifteen victims have been found and identified, nor has there been a definitive explanation as to their fate, a situation that continues to this day. 186. For the Court, the judgments handed down by the domestic courts on February 9, 2012, and May 29, 2013, are an important and positive landmark in the actions of the judiciary. However, given that in this case the forensic investigation in the search, recovery, analysis and eventual identification of the victims’ remains has been characterized by a clear lack of thoroughness and due diligence, which is particularly serious, the Court does not find it appropriate to accept the State’s argument on the applicability of the principle of subsidiarity and complementarity. Thus, in the present case the forced disappearance of the victims persists to this day. 187. Therefore, the Court considers that the State is responsible for the forced disappearance of the fifteen victims of this case: Yesenia Osnayo Hilario, Miriam Osnayo Hilario, Edith Osnayo Hilario, Wilmer Hilario Carhuapoma, Alex Jorge Hilario, Raúl Hilario Guillén, Héctor Hilario Guillén, Francisco Hilario Torres, Mercedes Carhuapoma de la Cruz, Dionicia Quispe Mallqui, Antonia Hilario Quispe, Magdalena Hilario Quispe, Dionicia Guillén Riveros, Ramón Hilario Morán and Elihoref Huamaní Vergara. D. Alleged violations of Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1), 3, 11, 17 and 19 of the American Convention relating to the forced disappearances 188. The Court notes that the initial detention of the fifteen victims in this case was carried out by military forces in the context of a state of emergency and suspension of guarantees, whereby the Armed Forces assumed control of public order in the Department of Huancavelica (supra paras. 86 and 87), and that this deprivation of liberty was a prior step to their disappearance. For the Court, the fact that the victims were taken to the mine without being brought before the competent authority clearly constituted an abuse of power which, under no circumstances, can be construed as a military action to guarantee national security and maintain public order in the national territory. Therefore, the State is responsible for the violation of Article 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the fifteen victims indicated above (supra para. 187). 189. Upon being deprived of their liberty, the victims were beaten and forced to walk for several hours, tied up and without food or water; they were then led into the mine shaft prior to their elimination (supra para. 91), placing them in a serious situation of vulnerability. It should be considered that this situation likely caused the children feelings of loss, intense fear, uncertainty, anguish and pain, which may have varied and intensified depending on the age and the particular circumstances of each one. Therefore, the Court considers that the victims suffered treatment contrary to the inherent dignity of the human being while in State custody, which affected their psychological, physical and moral integrity. These acts also constituted forms of torture because they were committed intentionally and caused the victims severe suffering, due to the uncertainty of what could happen to them and the deep fear that they might be violently killed, as indeed occurred, with the deprivation of life being the ultimate purpose of said acts. Therefore, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal