121. Third, the Commission highlights the contents of the press releases of 2003 that make reference to a former Intelligence Officer who directly connected the then-Director of the Criminal Investigation Service of the National Police (SIC-10) to the disappearance of the alleged victim, indicating that “General Vaca knows where are the remains of the writer Gustavo Garzón” and that “said General acted as the brain of a group of police officers that tortured and murdered members of the Group “Alfaro Vive Carajo”. In one of the press releases it is indicated that said General stated, without expressly denying the facts, that it was not a personal policy, rather, it was one of the institutional mission of the hierarchic entity to which he belonged. 122. Fourth, the Commission observes that the State did not provide an alternative hypothesis based on a diligent and effective investigation. As analyzed below, the State did not properly investigate all the elements mentioned so far; nonetheless, the State had knowledge of these from the moment the complaints were made by the family of Mr. Garzón, as well as the public complaints made by his associates. The State did not carry out any investigation into the information transmitted through the press releases mentioned above. The Commission notes that all indications in the file before the Commission and the conclusions of the Truth Commission are consistent with the deprivation of liberty by State agents and the State has not provided information or evidence consistent with another hypothesis. 123. In virtue of the above, the Commission considers there are sufficient elements that, considered in conjunction and along with the absence of an alternative and properly substantiated hypothesis, allow it to conclude that César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán was deprived of liberty by State agents, under the custody of the State. In this regard, the Commission considers that the first and second elements of forced disappearance are fulfilled in this case. 2. In relation to the denial of acknowledging the detention and cover-up 124. In relation to the denial of acknowledging the detention and cover-up, the Commission observes that when family and friends of the alleged victim denounced the acts and requested information from various authorities, the latter responded they did not have knowledge of his detention nor of his whereabouts. 125. In addition to the negative responses, the Commission observes that in the present case there existed additional cover-up mechanisms. On one hand, in the framework of the interviews carried out by the Police in the days after the disappearance, the Police intimidated one of the persons who was with Mr. Garzón Guzmán, affectionately relating the person with him, as well as qualifying the person as belonging to a subversive group, which can be understood as a mechanism to dissuade the person from providing relevant information about the disappearance or to demand the search of Mr. Garzón Guzmán. On the other hand, the Commission notes that the only investigations about the facts that are recorded in the present case, are those undertaken by the National Police, an entity that belonged to the repressive structure at the time and that must have been investigated as potentially responsible for the disappearance. 126. Also, the Commission highlights that the hypotheses considered and the negative response of the authorities coincides with the institutional modus operandi in cases of forced disappearances at the time of the events in Ecuador. As indicated, the Truth Commission stated that there existed a pact of silence between the police and military institutions, according to which they denied all events and the disappearance was portrayed as related to common delinquency, a tragic accident or a personal and secret decision to distance themselves from their context. In this case, the Commission recalls that the State denied the acts and worked with the hypothesis that he was abducted by members of the same “subversive” group to which he belonged, that he voluntarily disappeared “because of disillusion in love” or that he voluntarily fled to Colombia to join a “subversive” group. These hypotheses that are not the result of a diligent and effective investigation, and that do not dismiss all indications of state participation, constituted a mechanism of cover-up. 3. Conclusion 127. By virtue of the above considerations, the Commission considers that the constitutive elements of a forced disappearance of persons are present. 21