and the case law of this Court itself, have pronounced on the most serious forms of forced disappearance, these sources should not be understood as covering all possible modalities of this serious human rights violation or as excluding others not set out in them. Therefore, in some cases, the analysis of the disappearance based solely on the three elements mentioned may be insufficient or unnecessary (supra para. 86). 95. In this regard, as established in the Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia in this case, the Court notes that the alleged forced disappearance occurred while the presumed victim was deprived of their liberty in a state establishment.128 As stated on that occasion, it is pertinent to remember that the State of Ecuador was in a special position as a guarantor of Fredy Núñez Naranjo. Such position is derived, on one hand, from the fact that prison authorities exercise heavy control or command over the persons in their custody129; and, on the other hand, by the particular rigor with which the State is able to regulate their rights and obligations and owing to the circumstances inherent in internment.130 As a result of the aforementioned guarantor position, the State had a particular duty of custody towards Fredy Núñez Naranjo precisely because he was under the surveillance and care of the police station agents. 96. The Court highlights that, from the moment the community members presented themselves at the police station, state agents were aware of their place from which they had come.131 As previously indicated, despite the proximity between said place and the station (three kilometers away), the police officers did not turn to or request that another authority assist these communities in order to recover Fredy Núñez Naranjo (supra para. 92). In fact, even though the second police report comes from a lieutenant who was leading about twenty agents and the report was addressed to the province police commander, just a few hours before the transfer of Fredy Núñez Naranjo to the Puñachizag community (supra para. 47), there is no evidence that the group of police officers present or the provincial police took any effort to rescue the alleged victim. 97. This Court recalls that, according to its case law, the State's failure to clarify the facts is a sufficient and reasonable element to lend weight to the evidence and belief that a forced disappearance was perpetrated, or to conclude that such even had happened when the person was under state custody (supra para. 87). Precisely for this reason, the State's defense cannot rest on the lack of evidence when it is the State itself that has control over the means to clarify the facts (supra para. 85). 98. Taking the above into account, the Court finds that the State failed to fulfill the duty of custody that corresponded to it due to its position as guarantor of Fredy Núñez Naranjo. For this reason, by virtue of the reasons stated, this Court considers that in this case a forced disappearance was committed, attributable to the State of Ecuador. B.3 Conclusions about the alleged violations 99. In accordance with the Court’s case law, the forced disappearance of Fredy Núñez Naranjo implies the violation of his rights to juridical personality (Article 3), to life (Article 4(1)), to humane Cf. Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 85. Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 60, and Case of Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2020. Series C No. 417, para. 88. 130 Cf. Case of the "Juvenile Reeducation Institute" v. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 152, and Case of Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 88. 131 Cf. Police reports issued on July 15, 2001 at 5:30 PM and at 7:00 PM (case file of evidence, pages 1656 and 1660). 128 129 -29-