110. Added to the foregoing is the information in the report of the Office of the People’s Defender on Mr. Donayres, who was also detained at the police station on the day of the events, and who had approached the driver of that office to tell him that he wanted to give information about the cries and moaning he heard at the police station, but that he did not feel safe. 111. Based on the above-mentioned information, the Office of the People’s Defender concluded that: During the detention of Walter Munárriz Escobar, he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse by police personnel […].88 112. By the virtue of the foregoing considerations, the Commission sums up: that there is no documentary evidence of any kind of the release; that the testimonies submitted by the State and which constitute the only evidence of the alleged release of Walter Munárriz Escobar do not meet the minimum standards of credibility; that there are many circumstantial elements which, taken together, demonstrate that in general, the actions of the police involved with Walter Munárriz Escobar were irregular and arbitrary; and, that there are statements that indicate specific abuse suffered by him while in the custody of the State. Based on these grounds, the Peruvian State failed to prove the release of Walter Munárriz Escobar, and therefore it was unable to refute the participation of state agents in his disappearance. 113. Thus the Commission concludes that the first element comprising forced disappearance, namely, deprivation of liberty and the participation of state agents, has been satisfied. 2.2 Denial of deprivation of freedom and refusal to provide information on the fate or whereabouts [of the victim] 114. Having established deprivation of freedom and its continuation at the hands of state agents, the Commission notes that police officials made use of various mechanisms to cover it up. 115. In the first place, there is the fact that the officers present at the Lircay police station did not record the detention of Walter Munárriz Escobar in the books of common street incidents or in the record of detainees at that station. Due to failure to comply with police protocol on record-keeping, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated and concluded with the reprimand of all of the officers involved in the events, as established in the section on proven facts. 116. In the second place, Mrs. Gladys Escobar Candiotti, the mother of Walter Munárriz Escobar, stated that on the same day, March 20, 1999, she went to the Lircay police station to ask about her son, and was told when she arrived that he was not there. The next day, Mrs. Escobar went to the Lircay Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, to file a complaint regarding the disappearance of her son. The petitioners indicated consistently that the Prosecutor refused to receive her complaint and asked her to come back in 60 days, and acted incredulous when she heard what Mrs. Escobar came to report. Mrs. Escobar returned on three occasions to that Prosecutor’s Office and each time met with the same refusal. The State did not challenge this fact, which is consistent with the removal of that prosecutor from the investigation and with the conclusions of the Office of the People’s Defender regarding the prosecutor’s lack of diligence and impartiality, aspects that will be analyzed later on. The refusals of the Lircay Provincial Prosecutor prevented the relevant investigations from being initiated immediately. 117. In the third place the IACHR underlines that, in the expanded charges presented on June 22, 1999, the Superior Prosecutor stated that: After studying the court documents, it is evident that, when the accused, Adolfo Edgar Angeles Ramos, gave his statement at the pretrial hearing, he stated that when Walter Munárriz Escobar was brought to the Lircay police station, PNP noncommissioned officer 88 Annex 33. Report No. 024-99-RDP/HVA, 22 April 1999. Annex to the initial petition.. 23