regards the lack of actions to search for their whereabouts through efficient investigations and the impossibility of resources being brought in his favor before the State's refusal of the fact that he is in his custody. 116. In relation to the characteristics of forced disappearance, it has the following concurring and constituting elements: i) deprivation of liberty; ii) direct involvement of governmental officials or by acquiescence, and iii) refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty and to disclose the fate and whereabouts of the person concerned.91 117. Next, the Commission will determine whether what happened to César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán constituted a forced disappearance, in light of each of the elements described. Taking into consideration the characteristics of the case at hand, wherein the controversy lies in the existence or not of evidence about the deprivation of liberty by state agents, the Commission considers pertinent to analyze the two first elements in conjunction. 1. In relation to the deprivation of liberty by State agents 118. The Commission observes that in accordance with the available testimonial evidence, the last place where Mr. Garzón Guzmán was seen was the discotheque “La Candela”, between the night of November 9, 1990 and the early morning of the following day. There is no direct evidence about the fact that Mr. Garzón Guzmán was deprived of liberty by state agents in said place or while leaving the place, thus, the Commission will analyze if the constitutive elements are present in light of the indicative and circumstantial evidence. As previously stated, this evidence is especially relevant in cases of forced disappearance of persons because of the nature of this violation. 119. First, the Commission highlights a series of contextual elements that are supported by the report of the Truth Commission. As indicated in the proven facts, in the immediate years before the disappearance, there was a context of state repression of subversion under the doctrine of national security, and in accordance, certain persons or groups of persons were considered domestic enemies. These persons were victims of grave human rights violations in a selective manner, based on said doctrine. Among these groups, the Truth Commission identified “Alfaro Vive Carajo” and “Montoneras Patria Libre”92 In relation to the types of violations recorded by the Truth Commission, forced disappearance was highlighted as one type. Finally, in relation to the context, the Commission observes that in the year of 1990, when Mr. Garzón Guzmán disappeared, both military and police repressive structures persisted. 120. Second, there are various elements that connect Mr. Garzón Guzmán to said context. On the one hand, the alleged victim was released after being detained in the Garcia Moreno prison in connection with various crimes, two months before his disappearance. In addition, in the context of his detainment prior to his disappearance, the alleged victim was officially qualified as “subversive” and associated with the “Alfaro Vive Carajo” and “Montoneras Patria Libre” groups. On the other hand, according to the statement made by Liliana Vázconez Vaca, when she was interviewed by the Police approximately one month after the disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán in the framework of its investigation, various agents threatened her and associated her with the alleged victim, qualifying her as an active member of the “Montoneras Patria Libre” group. The Commission also highlights that one friend that accompanied the alleged victim in the discotheque “Son Candela” the day of the events, expressed that Mr. Garzón Guzmán commented to him that “I know that I’m being followed, the agents are closely following my steps”. From all these elements, the Commission understands that Mr. Garzón Guzmán was identified by the security agencies of the State precisely as a member of the subversive groups that were the target of the afore-mentioned repression. 91 I/A Court H.R., Case Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97; Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 55; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 202, para. 60. 92 See Application filed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the case of Consuelo Benavidez (10.476) against the Republic of Ecuador, these facts are referenced. 20