33 of the mentioned legal proceedings (infra paras. 137 to 150). It is as from the issuance of this report that the whereabouts of Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cardenas were finally established. * * * 93. The Tribunal shall analyze the Commission's arguments as to Ibsen Cardenas’ alleged forced disappearance until the date on which his remains were identified, when the alleged violation would have ceased. 94. The Court has verified that Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cardenas was arrested and later finally transferred to the detention center of Achocalla, in the city of La Paz. He was deprived of liberty for approximately nine months after which he was deprived of life as a result of several gunshot wounds to the head,112 all this while in the custody of the State. From the pattern of violations committed during that time, the context of which was expressly acknowledged by the State, it is possible to sustain that the arrest and subsequent disappearance of Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas was not only contrary to the right to personal liberty, but also put him in a grave situation of risk of suffering irreparable damage to his personal integrity.113 The determination of the specific parties who made the arrest, of what happened to him during the time he was deprived of liberty, and of the circumstances surrounding his death have still not been judicially determined (infra paras. 161, 174, 211, 225 and 226). The Court emphasizes that the alleged death certificate issued in 1972 indicated that Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas had died due to “internal hemorrhage caused by a bullet” (supra para. 86), while the certificate issued in 2008 based on the genetic and anthropological examinations indicated that he died as a result of a “cranio-encephalic trauma” and “multiple traumas” (supra para. 91). 95. In this regard, the Tribunal has established that subjecting detainees to official repressive bodies, state agents, or individuals that act with its acquiescence or tolerance that practice torture and murder with impunity is, in itself, an infringement to the duty to prevent violations to the rights to personally integrity and life, even when the acts of torture or deprivation of life of the person cannot be proven in the specific case.114 The State is in a special position of guarantor with respect to persons deprived of their liberty due to the fact that State authorities exercise total control over them.115 In addition, this Court has sustained that forced disappearance violates the right to humane treatment [personal integrity] because “[t]he mere existence of prolonged isolation and coercive solitary confinement is cruel and inhuman treatment [...] in contravention of paragraphs 1 and 2 [of Article 5 of the Convention].”116 112 Cf. “Final Report on the Works of Exhumation and Anthropological Analysis of the Buried Remains in the ASOFAMD Cemetery, Sector B, General Cemetery of La Paz” (Case file 37/2000, Volume 25, folios 10173 to 10174 and 18974 to 18975). 113 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 152. 114 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para. 175; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 153, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 95. 115 Cf. Case of Neira-Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. para. 221, and Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haití. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008 Series C No. 180. para. 130. 116 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para. 187; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 153, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 94.