Teresa Díaz Aparicio occurred in a context in which forced disappearance was a means of eliminating persons suspected of terrorism. 179. After having recapitulated the information on the disappearance of each of the alleged victims, as well as each disappearance’s association with the context of the systematic use of forced disappearance, especially at the time in which each of them was last heard from, the Commission concludes that all the elements described, taken together with the lack of alternative hypotheses in the context of diligent and effective investigations – see infra paragraphs 190-207 – allow one to infer that Wilfredo Terrones Silva, Teresa Díaz Aparicio, Santiago Antezana Cueto, Néstor Rojas Medina, and Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello were detained by state security agents from 1984 to 1992. 180. In addition, the Commission emphasizes the intrinsic impairment are risk to the rights to life and integrity as the result of a deprivation of liberty in clandestine circumstances marked by incommunicado detention, defenselessness, and the total impossibility of activating legal mechanisms on one’s own behalf. All these elements allow one to infer that the persons detained went through extreme suffering. 2.2 The denial of deprivation of liberty and refusal to provide information about fate or whereabouts 181. Having established the deprivation of liberty by state agents in the terms described above, the Commission notes that in every case the state authorities either denied the detention of the alleged victims or refused to provide information about their fate or whereabouts. 182. In the case of Wilfredo Terrones Silva, his family members indicated that they looked for him at police facilities and in hospitals without having obtained information. In addition, although there is an interview with a former member of the Grupo Colina who indicated that he was likely thrown into the sea – which would be a clear way to make impossible any determination as to his whereabouts – there is no information that indicates that there was any follow-up on this hypothesis, which made it possible to continue covering up the fate of Mr. Terrones Silva. 183. In the case of Teresa Díaz Aparicio, her mother indicated that she searched for her at work, in morgues, in hospitals, and at the police, without obtaining information. The writ of habeas corpus filed by her brother was declared out of order on procedural grounds, as there was no record of her detention; and no exhaustive search was conducted, allowing the uncertainty as to what happened to Díaz Aparicio to persist. 184. In the case of Santiago Antezana Cueto, at the moment of filing their complaint on March 19, 1985, the family members indicated that at the military base they were denied any information about their loved one and they were threatened, and that the same thing would happen to them if they continued insisting. His wife indicated in a subsequent amendment to the complaint that at the same base they were told that although Mr. Antezana Cueto did pass through there, but that he was transferred to Ayacucho, with no additional information. 185. In the case of Néstor Rojas Medina, both of his aunts who learned of his detention from the Police of Tocache went to the military base where their nephew was supposedly being held, where they were told that even though he had been held there, he was no longer there, yet they were not given any more information about where he might have been transferred. 186. In the case of Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello, her mother filed a complaint with the prosecutorial authorities and a writ of habeas corpus in the days following her detention. Though she indicated that the lieutenant of the technical police who performed the search, days after the disappearance, gave her to understand that her daughter was detained, she was not given more information. 187. In addition to the foregoing, the Commission notes that one of the main mechanisms of concealment activated at the time in the context of the systematic use of forced disappearance was ensuring impunity. As will be analyzed in the section on the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, for