95. For its part, Article 1.a of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons establishes that the States Parties to that Convention undertake not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees. They also 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. 96. Before analyzing the liability of the Ecuadorian State with respect to the provisions transcribed above, it is incumbent upon the Commission to pronounce on the legal characterization of the facts established in the instant case. For that, it will take into account the definition given in Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (IACFDP). According to that instrument, forced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.. 97. As established above, , during the period of hostilities the armed forces of Ecuador and Peru mobilized and clashed. People were killed and wounded and several Peruvian citizens were detained in Ecuador by police and armed forces personnel. Under those circumstances, on January 30, 1995, Mr. Vásquez contacted his wife, Mrs. María Esther Gomero de Vásquez, [by phone] for the last time and told her he was worried "about getting his merchandise through customs" and into Peru. His family has had no contact with him since that call. 98. Later, at least one witness saw Mr. Vásquez Durand in the Teniente Ortiz military barracks in mid-June, 1995, detained and apparently in poor physical shape. The Ecuadorian military and police authorities repeatedly denied that Mr. Vásquez Durand had been detained and they failed to conduct a serious and effective investigation into that matter. However, Mr. Vásquez Durand was not alone and the detentions of Peruvian citizens in Ecuador prompted the Peruvian State to request the Ecuadorian State to release at least 21 people, who been arrested in a number of different regions in Ecuador, such as: Guayaquil, Loja, Machala, and Quito in May 199591. 99. Based on the analysis performed in this chapter, the Commission considers that the foregoing material is sufficient to conclude that Mr. Vásquez Durand was detained by Ecuadorian army personnel on January 30, 1995 and taken to various different military facilities. The IACHR likewise considers that what happened to Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand must be characterized as forced disappearance, under the terms set forth in Article II of the IACFDP. Along the same lines, as pointed out above, the Ecuadorian Truth Commission describes Mr. Jorge Vásquez Durand's status as one of forced disappearance through the Law for Reparation of Victims and Prosecution in 2013, the State pledged to repair the “grave violations of human rights and crimes against humanity committed in Ecuador between October 4, 1983 and December 31, 2008”, documented in said report. To that respect, the IACHR reiterates that, even though the State made no reference to this recognition, the Commission takes a positive view of it and determines that it has legal effects in the proceedings. 91 During the conflict, the Commission was informed by the Ecuadorian and Peruvian States, by petitioners, and by information in the public domain, that several Peruvians had been detained in Ecuador. On this, see: Appendix 6. Detainees whose release is being negotiated (AI 11-05-95 4.00 P.M.) Appended to the Note of the Permanent Mission of Peru to the Organization of American States of May 12, 1995. Appendix 7. Writ of the State of Ecuador, dated May 22, 1995, presenting information to the IACHR regarding Cases 11.456, 11.457, 11.458, and 11.462, all alleging detentions of Peruvian citizens in Ecuador during the Cenepa Valley conflict. In the same Note, the State indicates that "the Government of Ecuador already proposed to the Government of Peru, several weeks ago, that the two countries swap detainees accused for spying,. See also Appendix 9. Poster of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Ecuadorian Red Cross. Appended to a writ submitted by the petitioners on May 22, 1995. 23