accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 111. In turn, Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons provides as follows: Article I The States Parties to this Convention undertake: a) Not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees; 112. In this case, the dispute concerns whether or not the State bears international responsibility for the alleged forced disappearance and execution of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe. The petitioners argue that what happened to Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe qualifies as forced disappearance attributable to the State, at least through the acquiescence or complicity of state agents. The State, for its part, contends that the evidence adduced is not sufficient to demonstrate its responsibility. 113. In that regard, the Commission considers it as well to recall that international responsibility of the State may be based on the acts or omissions of any branch of government or organ thereof that violate the American Convention, and it arises immediately with the attributed international wrongful act. In such circumstances, to establish a violation of the rights enshrined in the Convention one need not determine, as in domestic criminal law, the guilt of its agents or their intent, nor need to individually identify the agents to which the violations are attributed, nor establish “that the responsibility of the State is proven beyond all reasonable doubt.” It is sufficient to demonstrate “that acts or omissions have been verified that have allowed the perpetration of these violations or that a State obligation exists that the State has failed to meet.”81 114. Bearing in mind its determinations in its factual analysis herein, the Commission reiterates that it has taken the following as proven: (i) a context of paramilitarism; (ii) a context of violence against UP party members or supporters and trade unionists in the area where the events occurred, which has not been contested by the State; (iii) a regulatory framework in which it may assumed that trade unions were identified as internal enemies; (iv) at the time of the disappearance Mr. Isaza Uribe was a trade unionist and at the least a UP supporter; (v) Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe disappeared while in State custody; (vi) nothing is known of Mr. Isaza Uribe or his whereabouts since November 19, 1987. 115. In that regard, the Commission notes that a peculiarity of this case is that it concerns an alleged forced disappearance of a person while that person was formally deprived of liberty in the context of a criminal proceeding. Thus, the Commission finds it appropriate to begin its analysis of legal considerations in this case by recalling a number of relevant standards concerning the position of the State as guarantor of persons who are in its custody, as well as with respect to the presumption of State responsibility for what befalls a person deprived of liberty and the resulting burden of proof on the State. The Commission will then examine whether the facts in this case amount to a forced disappearance. 1. Considerations on the State's obligations as guarantor with respect to persons deprived of their liberty 116. The Commission and the Court have determined that, where persons who have been deprived of their liberty are concerned, the State is in a special position of guarantor, as the prison authorities 81 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gonzalez Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, par 133; Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C, No. 140, par. 112.