• Osorio Rivera went to his brother’s home in Cochas Paca and, when he was told that his brother had not been seen, the family proceeded to look for him without any success (supra para. 75). Porfirio and Silvia Osorio Rivera went to the office of the Prosecution Service in Cajatambo, where they met Lieutenant Tello Delgado (supra para. 76), who said that “your brother will appear in two or three years, because the same thing happened in Ayacucho.” 278 However, he did not provide further information on the whereabouts of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. 158. Taking into account that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was detained on April 28, 1991, by members of the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base, and then remained deprived of liberty in the building in Nunumia were the Army patrol was based from where he was unable to depart of his own free will and, on April 30, 1991, he was taken, with his hands tied, to the Cajatambo Countersubversive Base, the Court concludes that, even though, initially, there was no refusal to acknowledge the detention, by later stating that he had been released without providing information on his whereabouts, the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty and to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the victim was verified. In addition, the State continues to assert that the victim was released and, consequently, to deny his detention and whereabouts, which has meant that, to date, no response has been obtained concerning his fate. Conclusion 159. In summary, the Court finds that it has been sufficiently proved that Mr. Osorio Rivera was arrested by members of th Army in the community hall of Nunumia on April 28, 1991, and, subsequently, deprived of liberty in the building in Nunumia where the Army patrol was based, where he was seen by his next of kin for the last time on the morning of April 30, 1991, in the custody of the State, when he was taken to the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base. Consequently, the military authorities who detained and transferred Mr. Osorio Rivera were responsible for safeguarding his rights. Now that more than 22 years have passed since his detention, the members of Mr. Osorio Rivera’s family remain unaware of his whereabouts, despite the steps taken. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. B. Violations of Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1) and 3 of the American Convention and I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons B.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 160. The Commission affirmed that it was unnecessary to analyze whether the circumstances that surrounded the alleged deprivation of liberty were consistent with one of the elements of Article 7 of the American Convention. To the contrary, according to the Commission, the fact that Jeremías Osorio was forcibly disappeared following his detention allowed it to be concluded that the detention had been illegal, arbitrary and disregarded the guarantees established in the said article of the Convention. The Commission established that, in addition to the physical and mental suffering inherent in the alleged enforced disappearance, Jeremías Osorio Rivera had been subjected to deliberate acts of violence during his transfer by members of the Army on April 30, 1991. The Commission concluded that the acts of violence inflicted on Jeremías Osorio Rivera during his transfer to the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base on April 30, 1991, had been committed deliberately and had caused him intense physical and mental suffering. Also, in view of the fifth session of the oral proceeding held on December 21, 2010 (evidence file, volume IX, annex 15 to the State’s answering brief, folio 4626). 278 Pre-emptive statement made by Porfirio Osorio Rivera before the Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of Cajatambo on July 7, 2006 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 32 to the submission of the case, folio 1788). 58