147. As this report has established, Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe was an active member of the SUTIMAC trade union. At the time of the events, acts of violence were committed against members of that trade union, a fact known to the authorities and the public at large. As the statements to which the Commission has had access attest, the members of the trade union in Puerto Nare lived in fear of being murdered or disappeared and several felt obliged to leave. In that connection, the Court has held that “[t]he State must ensure that people can freely exercise their freedom of association without fear of being subjected to some kind of violence; otherwise, the ability of groups to organize themselves to protect their interests could be limited.”105 148. In this case, the Commission has already concluded that the State failed in its duty as guarantor of the rights of Mister Isaza Uribe while he was in its custody and also that what happened to the victim constituted forced disappearance of persons. Taking into account the existence, at the time of the facts, of a context of violence by paramilitaries against trade unions in the Department of Antioquia and, specifically, against members of SUTIMAC, the motive for the violations of the rights of Mr. Isaza Uribe was his union link to SUTIMAC in the Municipality of Puerto Nare and the union activities he performed. The Commission concludes that the State also violated Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe’s freedom of association recognized in Article 16 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. C. Rights to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8(1), 25 of the American Convention) 149. It follows from inter-American jurisprudence that insofar as a missing person's report is concerned the response of the State is inevitably linked to the protection of the life and well-being of the person reported missing. Whether the disappearance may have occurred at the hands of private citizens or at the hands of state agents is immaterial where duty of the State to render an immediate and exhaustive response is concerned. The Commission reiterates that “when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been disappeared, it is essential for prosecutorial and judicial authorities to take prompt and immediate action by ordering timely and necessary measures to determine the whereabouts of the victim or the place where he or she might be deprived of liberty.”106 150. It should be recalled that the Court has held that the State is specially obliged to guarantee the rights of people deprived of their liberty107 since the State has a special position of guarantor before them or of people in a situation of risk and has an obligation to undertake the necessary investigations to uncover the facts and, as appropriate, punish those responsible.108 [… continuation] Human Rights Committee, López Burgo case, Communication 52/1979: Uruguay, 29/07/81, referred to in I/A Court H.R., Case of HuilcaTecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment March 3, 2005. Series C, No. 121, par. 75. 105 77. I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C, No. 121, par. 106 I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C, No. 202, par. 134; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C, No. 209, par. 221; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C, No. 217, para. 167. See, also, Matter of Natera Balboa regarding Venezuela. (Provisional Measures) Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 1, 2010, Considering 13, and Matter of Guerrero Larez regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court, August 29, 2013, Considering 16. 107 I/A Court H.R., Matter of the Mendoza Prisons regarding Argentina. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 22, 2007, Considering, 16, and Matter of the Socio-Educational Internment Facility regarding Brazil. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 20, 2012, Considering 21. 108 I/A Court H.R. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, Note 4, Considering 24; and Matter of Álvarez et al. regarding Colombia, Note 5, Considering 104.