VII-1 ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE OBLIGATION TO PREVENT VIOLATIONS OF THE RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY,94 PERSONAL INTEGRITY,95 LIFE96 AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION97 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 51. The Commission indicated that “Mr. Gómez [Virula] was deprived of his rights to personal liberty and life. In addition, bearing in mind that Mr. Gómez was not murdered immediately, the Commission understands that his personal integrity was also violated, a conclusion also supported by testimony that he was beaten at the time of his detention.” The Commission stressed that the international responsibility arose owing to the failure to comply with the “obligation to ensure rights and, particularly, with regard to the duty to prevent [their violation].” The Commission indicated that the State’s duty of prevention was enhanced because, at the time of the facts, violations of the rights of labor unionists were common knowledge and because the public complaints made by the labor union to which Mr. Gómez Virula belonged “mentioned Mr. Gómez in his capacity as financial secretary of a labor union.” In this regard, the Commission considered that the State had only taken measures “two days after” the report of his disappearance; hence, this was not a “prompt and immediate” response. 52. Regarding the right to freedom of association, the Commission considered that there were “significant indications that Mr. Gómez Virula’s disappearance and murder may have been related to his activities” and that, therefore, it was “reasonable to infer that the disappearance and death of Alexander Gómez Virula was related to his labor union activities.” However, it pointed out that those indications had not been duly investigated by the State. Consequently, it concluded that failure to comply with the duty of prevention in relation to the rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty “also entailed a failure to comply with this duty with regard to his right to freedom of association.” 53. The representatives argued that, from the moment of the initial report of his disappearance, “the situation of extreme danger in which the alleged victim found himself should have been clear and unquestionable to the authorities.” Nevertheless, despite this, the State failed to comply with its obligation to take immediate and specific measures to search for his whereabouts in the interval between the first report of his disappearance and the finding of his corpse. They considered that there were “sufficient and significant indications” that his disappearance and murder “may have been linked” to his position as financial secretary of the union, and this was not investigated thoroughly and diligently. They indicated that, despite receiving the report, “the National Police only carried out two search procedures” and that nothing was done on the day of the report. 54. The State argued that, in the case of Mr. Gómez Virula, “specific protection based on his union activities was never requested for this person before the domestic or international instances.” It clarified that the alleged victim “was a voluntary collaborator” in his union activities. It indicated that there had been no threats prior to his disappearance and that his union had never filed a complaint indicating risks or threats. It argued that, following the report of his disappearance, the State had taken investigative measures to discover the whereabouts of the alleged victim. The State also argued that “it had never prevented” Mr. Gómez Virula from exercising his right to freedom of association. 94 Article 7 of the American Convention. 95 Article 5 of the American Convention. 96 Article 4 of the American Convention. 97 Article 16 of the American Convention. 15