95. The dispute between the parties has to do with whether Walter Munárriz Escobar remained at the police station and subsequently disappeared at the hands of state agents, or whether the official version of his release has been proven. 96. In the case of Osorio Rivera et al vs. Peru, the Inter-American Court analyzed a forced disappearance in which the State agreed on the arrest, but argued that the victim had been released, and therefore his disappearance cannot be attributed to it. On this allegation, the Court stated that “both in Peru and in other countries where there have been forced disappearances, there is information to the effect that the authorities make a practice of reporting that the person alleged to have disappeared had been released, in order to hide the true fate or whereabouts of the person who was detained.”83 97. The Commission emphasizes that, on taking Walter Munárriz Escobar into custody, the State acquired a special obligation to guarantee his rights, and an obligation to conduct a thorough investigation into his disappearance, with a view to providing a satisfactory explanation of what happened. In this context, the State is responsible for demonstrating the truth of its statement on the alleged release with sufficient evidence to impair or refute the allegation of involvement of state agents in the disappearance, and its ensuing responsibility. 98. On this point, the Commission notes that, in the first place, there is no documentary evidence in support of that release. The State, the very police officers involved, and the disciplinary authority that penalized them all agree that there is no record at the Lircay police station that shows that Walter Munárriz Escobar was released. 99. In the second place, the Commission notes that the only evidence adduced by the State is related to the statement of two persons, Lucinda Ponce and Juan Martin Silva, who related that they had seen Walter Munárriz Escobar early in the morning of March 20, 1999 in the vicinity of the Lircay police station. With regard to this evidence, the Commission takes into account that as established in the proven facts, both the Huancavelica Joint Superior Court and the Office of the People’s Defender undermined the credibility of the accounts of these two persons when they stated that their testimony was not consistent and contained contradictions; it was particularly impaired when judicial inspections demonstrated that it was physically impossible for them to have recognized Walter Munárriz Escobar from the distance at which the alleged witnesses were located. 100. This testimony also lost credibility due to the fact that no other person had seen the young man. In addition to the determinations of the domestic authorities regarding the testimony in question, the Commission underlines that according to the established facts, one of the persons who claimed to have seen Walter Munárriz Escobar (Lucinda Ponce) told one of the persons detained at the police station (Mr. Sierra Tueros) that she had been “told” to say that she saw a young man with long hair walking in the area. 101. In the third place, in addition to the lack of documentary evidence of the release and to the lack of credibility of the testimony of Mrs. Ponce and Mr. Silva, the Commission has found many circumstantial elements that are consistent with the participation of state agents in the disappearance of Walter Munárriz Escobar. 102. Here, the Commission points out that the State acknowledged the noncompliance with police regulations and protocols throughout the operations of state agents involving Walter Munárriz Escobar, including their absolute failure to record and officially document his arrest, transfer, and admittance to the Lircay police station. 103. Moreover, the Commission notes that in the arrest, transfer, and admittance to the Lircay police station, the State failed to observe all of the guarantees established in Article 7 of the American Convention. 83 Inter-American Court. Case of Osorio Rivera and family Vs. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 290. Para. 137. 21