71 170. This Court has already deemed that it has been proved that Bámaca Velásquez was captured and retained in the hands of the Army, constituting a case of forced disappearance (supra 132, 133, 143 and 144). 171. The Court has already made it clear that any person deprived of liberty has the right to live in conditions of detention that are compatible with his personal dignity, and the State must guarantee his right to life and to humane treatment. Consequently, the State, as the body responsible for detention establishments, is the guarantor of such rights of those detained112. 172. As the United Nations Human Rights Committee mentioned above has indicated, [t]he protection against arbitrary deprivation of life that is explicitly required by the third phrase of Article 6(1) [of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] is of paramount importance. The Committee considers that States Parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces. The deprivation of life by the authorities of the State is a matter of utmost gravity. Therefore, [the State] must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which [a person] may be deprived of his life by such authorities113. 173. In this case, the circumstances in which the detention by State agents of Bámaca Velásquez occurred, the victim's condition as a guerrilla commander, the State practice of forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions (supra 121 b, d, f, g) and the passage of eight years and eight months since he was captured, without any more news of him, cause the Court to presume that Bámaca Velásquez was executed114. 174. This Court has indicated on previous occasions and in this judgment itself, that although the State has the right and obligation to guarantee its security and maintain public order, its powers are not unlimited, because it has the obligation, at all times, to apply procedures that are in accordance with the law and to respect the fundamental rights of each individual in its jurisdiction (supra 143). 175. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 4 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez. XIV VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 (RIGHT TO JURIDICAL PERSONALITY) 176. With regard to the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: 112 Cf. Neira Alegría et al. Case, supra note 102, para. 60. 113 United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Commentary 6/1982, para. 3 and Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 145. 114 Cf. Castillo Páez Case, supra note 52, paras. 71-72; Neira Alegría et al. Case, supra note 102, para. 76; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 198; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 188.