91. First, the unexpected nature of the appearance of a significant number of individuals in front of the police station has not been proven, as it is not logical that the gathering and subsequent movement towards the police station of a crowd of the dimensions claimed by the State would go unnoticed by state authorities. Secondly, the State did not clearly explain how the kidnapping occurred. It was not specified how many individuals got into the police station, how they did it, nor how they proceeded to release two community members and detain Fredy Núñez Naranjo. It has not been proven that these individuals were armed, -though it can be assumed that the officers were124-, that they attacked or threatened the police officers in order for them to release the detainees, nor whether it was the community members themselves who removed such persons from the cell(s). On this point, the Court is struck by the oddly identical and excessively succinct nature of the phrases used in the reports and police statements that only refer to the number of community members and the fact that they breached the police station security, although it is not indicated exactly how that was done.125 92. In third place, the State of Ecuador did not provide evidence of any action by state agents aimed at protecting individuals who were deprived of their liberty, under their responsibility and custody. In fact, the police reports do not even mention that the doors of the police station had been closed upon the arrival of the community members or the reasons why this would not have been possible, nor do they refer to whether there was any type of contact or communication between police officers and community members; nor do they mention the behavior displayed by the police officers and the commissioner present at the police station at the time of the incursion by the community members.126 There is no evidence that they called for reinforcements or carried out any kind of action that, ultimately, proved futile or unsuccessful against the determination and number of the community members. It is also not stated that they pursued, requested reinforcements, blocked roads, or attempted to immediately locate Mr. Núñez Naranjo, considering that the mobilization of 400 individuals just 3 kilometers away was easy to track, and that it would have been straightforward to determine the direction in which they were moving. It was the State's responsibility to provide evidence of the indicated facts not only because it was the party claiming force majeure, but also because this information should have been provided by its own agents. 93. Given the above, since it was not proven that the kidnapping of Fredy Núñez from the Quero Canton police station occurred under circumstances that were irresistible, unforeseen, and beyond the control of the State (supra para. 90), the Court understands that no alleged force majeure by the State was established. 94. Nevertheless, the Court notes that, although the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, as well as other important international instruments on the matter127 In their final allegation briefs, the State noted that "the police officers were equipped with revolver-type weapons and had a motorcycle for their mobilization." 125 Cf. Police Report addressed to the Provincial Chief of the Tungurahua Police Command on July 15, 2001 at 17:30 hours (case file of evidence, page 1656); Police Report addressed to the Provincial Police Commander of Tungurahua on July 15, 2001 at 19:00 hours (case file of evidence, page 1660); Testimonial statements of MV and LPV given on August 15, 2001 (case file of evidence, pages 37 and 322) and Police Report No. 1123-PJT-CP9-2001 of August 16, 2001 (case file of evidence, page 16). 126 Cf. Police Report addressed to the Provincial Chief of the Tungurahua Police Command on July 15, 2001 at 17:30 hours (case file of evidence, page 1656); Police Report addressed to the Provincial Police Commander of Tungurahua on July 15, 2001 at 19:00 hours (case file of evidence, page 1660) and Police Report addressed to the Provincial Police Commander of Tungurahua on July 18, 2001 at 12:00 hours (case file of evidence, page 179). 127 Cf. UN. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Forced Disappearance, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 20, 2006. See also United Nations Economic and Social Council, Report of the Working Group on Forced or Involuntary Disappearance of Persons, General Comment on Article 4 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Forced Disappearances of January 15, 1996 (E/CN. 4/1996/38), para. 55. 124 -28-