duty to conduct the exhaustive and effective investigation required of it, thereby failing to provide judicial guarantees and protection. 22. Regarding the right to life and personal integrity, the petitioners maintained that the State was obliged to prevent any activity that violated rights protected under the Convention, such as forced disappearance, which constitutes a crime against humanity. They pointed out that Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe was disappeared, abducted, which was tantamount to destroying his physical, moral, and mental integrity. 23. As for the right to personal liberty, the petitioners pointed out that Víctor Manuel Isaza was, legally detained, with regard to whom the State was duty-bound to provide the same custody, surveillance, and safeguards as for other detainees, including returning them in the same state as when they were handed to it. 24. They alleged that the Colombian authorities had attempted to elude their responsibility on the pretext that what happened was a prison break organized by the FARC. Accordingly, they maintain that the State appears to ignore the fact that, in this as in other cases, one of the mechanisms used to perpetuate impunity is to attempt to shift the focus of investigations, even if it means printing false guerrilla leaflets. 25. As regards the rights of the family, the right to know the truth and the right to personal integrity of the relatives, the petitioners alleged that the forced disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe and the wave of violence unleashed in the region forced the family to move to another municipality within the same department of Antioquia, for fear of attacks on their personal integrity. Furthermore, they had been subjected to the pain of going from office to office and having to hear that their family member had taken advantage of the "jailbreak." They claimed that those replies meant that the family went from being victims to being labeled accomplices. They also pointed out that in this case they have been denied access to the truth of what happened, because, 25 years later, the proceedings were still at the preliminary investigation phase, without Mr. Isaza Uribe's fate and whereabouts having been established. They said that all that had inflicted grave suffering on his family members, who still do not know whether he is alive or dead. B. The State 26. The State maintained that the facts presented by the petitioners do not prove the alleged collaboration or acquiescence of State agents through either actions or omissions supposedly coordinated with, parallel to, or linked to those of the private individuals responsible for the acts committed. Nor had it been demonstrated that the Colombian State had failed to adopt effective preventive and protection measures in respect of the persons taken from the municipal prison of Puerto Nare on November 19, 1987, including Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe. 27. The State affirmed that what was certain was that Mr. Isaza had been held at the municipal prison in Puerto Nare by order of the Criminal Investigation Court 64 of that municipality, which, on October 28, 1987 established his legal status when it issued a restraining order against him in the form of his being remanded in custody, without release from prison, for the murder of Mr. Humberto García Montoya.. It added that it had also been established that on the night of November 19, 1987, a group of between 8 and 10 armed individuals entered the prison and, after disarming and locking up the guards, took four inmates with them, including Víctor Isaza Uribe, to an unknown destination. The State pointed out that, in a judgment handed down on November 7, 1989, the 9th Higher Court of Medellín sentenced to 16 years in prison for aggravated homicide. 28. It also pointed out that in their statements to the Criminal Investigation Court 64 in Puerto Nare, two persons who had been inmates at the same prison at the time declared that it looked as if everything had been planned and that it was an escape facilitated by third parties, a conclusion that was reached by the Administrative Court in Antioquia, in connection with a direct reparation lawsuit filed by the family members of Mr. Isaza Uribe, and confirmed by the Council of State. The State added that from the evidence in the files for the criminal, disciplinary, and administrative proceedings, it transpired that there