exercise heavy control or command over the persons in their custody.82 Thus, there is a special relationship and interaction of subordination between the person deprived of liberty and the State, characterized by the particular intensity with which the State can regulate his or her rights and obligations, and by the inherent circumstances of imprisonment, where the prisoner is prevented from satisfying, on his own account, a series 83 of basic needs that are essential for leading a decent life. The Court has found that the State, in its capacity as guarantor of the rights enshrined in the Convention, is responsible for observance of the right to humane treatment of everyone in its custody.84 117. In addition, the Court’s case law has indicated that whenever an individual is deprived of liberty in normal health and subsequently displays health problems, the State must provide a satisfactory and credible explanation for this situation85 and disprove the allegations of its responsibility with adequate probative elements.86 The absence of such an explanation leads to the presumption of State responsibility for the injuries revealed by a person who has been in the custody of State agents.87 118. Although this case does not concern physical injuries displayed by a person deprived of their liberty, the Commission considers that presumption to be even more applicable in circumstances where a person disappears while in the custody of the State without a satisfactory explanation on the latter's part. Indeed, in the Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, the Inter-American Court applied a similar presumption in a case of forced disappearance in which the person was last known to have been in state custody.88 Specifically, the Court found that it was incumbent upon said state to prove its version of the facts lest it be concluded, perforce, that it was responsible. 89 In the same case, the Court took into particular consideration circumstantial evidence and its inconsistency with the version provided by the State.90 119. It follows from the foregoing, then, that the State had a special obligation to guarantee the rights of Mr. Isaza Uribe as a person deprived of liberty, and as well as the duty to conduct a thorough 82 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112, par. 152; Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C, No. 226, par. 42; and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C, No. 260, par. 188. See also IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty, December 30, 2011, pars. 46 and ff. 83 I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C, No. 112, par. 152; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C, No. 218, par. 216; and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C, No. 260, par. 188. See also IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty, December 30, 2011, pars. 46 and ff. 84 I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C, No. 141, pars. 104-106; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C, No. 220, par. 134; and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C, No. 260, par. 202. See also IACHR, Report on the Human Rights of Persons Deprived of Liberty, December 30, 2011, pars. 46 and ff. 85 I/A Court H.R., César Mendoza et al. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C, No. 260, par. 203, citing Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 99, par. 100; and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, par. 77. 86 I/A Court H.R., César Mendoza et al. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C, No. 260, par. 203, citing Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, par. 111; and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, par. 77. 87 I/A Court H.R., César Mendoza et al. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C, No. 260, par. 203, citing Cf. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, pars. 95 and 170; and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, Merits and Reparations, par. 77. 88 I/A Court H.R., Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C, No. 290, pars. 141 and 155; 89 I/A Court H.R., Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C, No. 290, pars. 141 and 155; 90 I/A Court H.R., Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C, No. 290, pars. 141 and 155;