Although, as indicated earlier, in a case of alleged forced disappearance, there can be any kind of deprivation of freedom without it being necessary to demonstrate noncompliance with these guarantees; however, in the present case, said noncompliance is so patent that it constitutes an additional indication that the action of the state agents was designed not to leave a written record of the situation of Walter Munárriz Escobar. 104. Along the same lines, the Commission points out that there are various indications to support the conclusion that at different times, there was pressure on witnesses to make certain statements favoring the police version, as well as possible threats to squash the testimony of witnesses who were detained with Walter Munárriz Escobar . This point will be analyzed later on when considering the acts of complicity. In this section, the IACHR will confine its comments to noting that these elements constitute additional circumstantial evidence of the participation of state agents. 105. Furthermore, the Commission draws attention to the information on the abusive treatment inflicted on Walter Munárriz Escobar while he was deprived of liberty at the Lircay police station. Although, in accordance with the standards described for cases of forced disappearance, there is no need to demonstrate the existence of specific acts of torture or abuse to determine violations of the right to humane treatment, in the present case there are elements that point to the fact that Walter Munárriz Escobar was in fact the victim of abuse, an additional piece of circumstantial evidence that undermines the State’s claim that he was released. 106. In this regard, Marcos Leónidas Sierra Tueros gave a statement to the representative of the People’s Defender, according to which: […] early in the morning of 3/20/99, he heard a guy screaming as if he was being beaten, explaining that the person in question was crying to them to stop hitting him; that the screams and cries could be heard for twenty to thirty minutes […]84 107. Furthermore, in his statement to the Huancavelica Superior Prosecutor’s Office, he stated that he recognized the voices of the police officers who were beating Walter Munárriz Escobar, and he told them that: Talk you c… why did you come into the room, for approximately half an hour, and after that there was silence as if they had fallen asleep, and then it sounded like something was being dragged, and after that nothing else could be heard.85 108. Although, Mr. Marcos Leónidas Sierra Tueros subsequently changed his statement to the Prosecutor, there is also the statement that he made to the Office of the People’s Defender, in which he said that “he was coerced into stating in the Prosecutor’s Office that nothing unusual had occurred on the day of the events in question.���86 As will be indicated later in this report, the reasons for that retraction were not duly investigated by the State, in order to clarify if they had to do with some form of pressure or threats from state agents. 109. On this point, the mother of Walter Munárriz Escobar had the following to say: […] afterwards the wife of Mr. Sierra Tueros came and told me, he says that your son was badly abused, that even the wall resounded as if they were bashing his head against it, and your son was screaming and they swore at him for going in [the room], and he says that all of a sudden everything was quiet and shortly after that, a car started up […].87 84 Annex 36. Record of Inspection Visit of March 31, 1999. Office of the People’s Defender, Annex to the initial petition. 85 Annex 21. Statement of Charges [Dictamen Acusatorio] 010-2000, Huancavelica Joint Superior Prosecutor’s Office, June 1, 2000. Annex to the initial petition. 86 Annex 37. Record of the inspection visit of the Office of the People’s Defender - 361/03/99. Annex to the initial petition. 87 Annex 38. Record of the continuation of the hearing, twenty-second edition. Annex to the initial petition. 22