212. The Commission considers that the statements – referred to at paragraphs 118 ff. – by Ms. Rosa Carcausto and, above all, the statements by Mr. Máximo Antezana, who as proven supra at paragraphs 117 ff., was detained with Santiago Antezana Cueto, taken together with the context, which also included the use of torture prior to the disappearance of the person detained, are sufficient to infer that Mr. Santiago Antezana Cueto was a victim of torture in the facilities of the Acobamba Military Base. The Commission also takes into account that during the processing of the instant case the State learned of the allegations which, in this respect, were made by the petitioners without expressly controverting them, and without reporting on the existence of investigations specifically aimed at establishing these facts. 213. Similarly, the Commission observes that the family members of Santiago Antezana Cueto reported those acts of torture on several occasions to the competent authorities in Peru. Nonetheless, as of the date of this report, the State has not provided any information on the lines of investigation pursued and the petitioners affirm that “the allegations of torture have not been investigated … acts which to this day continue in impunity, as they have not been investigated or taken into account by the State.”193 214. The Commission recalls that in cases in which torture is alleged, the obligation to investigate is reinforced by the provisions of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, according to which the State is obligated to “take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction,” as well as to “take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” In addition, Article 8 of that Convention notes that if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process. 215. In view of the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State violated the right to humane treatment established at Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Santiago Antezana Cueto for the torture to which he was subjected at the Acobamba Military Base. The State also violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection contained in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. The Commission considers that the State also violated Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. E. Obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law related to codifying the crime of forced disappearance of persons (Article 2 of the American Convention and Article III of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons) 216. Article 2 of the American Convention provides: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 217. Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons establishes: The States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional procedures, the legislative measures that may be needed to define the forced disappearance of persons as an offense and to impose an appropriate punishment commensurate with its extreme gravity. This offense shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined. 193 Annex 69. Communication from the petitioners, January 17, 2014.