47 clandestine manner directly against the members already identified and located, in order to break them morally and materially, until achieving their complete destruction.”140 152. Thus, the disappearance of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco is not only, from all points of view, contrary to the right to personal liberty, but it is also framed within a pattern of massive arrests and forced disappearances (supra paras. 132 through 137), which leads to the conclusion that it put him in a grave situation of risk of suffering irreparable damages to his personal integrity and his life. In this sense, the ruling of the National Human Rights Commission, which determined the following, stands out: Based on the modus operandi of the public officials involved and their actions outside the law, as well as the statements gathered by [the] National Commission of those who suffered acts characteristic of torture and who later obtained their freedom, were very probably submitted to the same practice as the victims of forced disappearance, which was used as a means to obtain confessions and information in order to locate other people.” 141 153. In that sense, for the Court it is evident that the military authorities that arrested Mr. Radilla-Pacheco were responsible for the protection of his rights. The Tribunal has established that the bringing of detainees before official repressive bodies, state agents, or individuals that act with its acquiescence or tolerance, that without punishment practice torture and murder represents, in itself, an infringement to the duty to prevent violations to the rights to humane treatment and life, even in the assumption that the acts of torture or deprivation of life of the person in the specific case cannot be proven.142 Additionally, this Court has held that forced disappearance violates the right to humane treatment because “[t]he mere fact of a prolonged isolation and a coactive solitary confinement, represents cruel and inhuman treatment [...] contradicting paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 5 of the Convention.”143 154. Taking into account the aforementioned, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to liberty and humane treatment, and to life of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, in relation to that stated in Articles I and XI of the CIDFP. 155. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention (supra para. 147), the Court has considered that the content itself of the right to acknowledgment of juridical personality is that the person be acknowledged [i]n any part as a subject of rights and obligations, and to enjoy fundamental civil rights[, which] implies the capacity of being the bearer of rights (capacity and enjoyment) and duties; the violation of that acknowledgment presumes disregarding in absolute terms the possibility to be a 144 bearer of [civil and fundamental] rights and duties. 140 Cf. Recommendation 026/2001 of the National Human Rights Commission (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 3, folio 883 and dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix V(2), page 12). 141 Cf. Recommendation 026/2001 of the National Human Rights Commission (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 3, folio 899 and dossier of appendixes to the respondent’s plea, appendix V(2), page 27). 142 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 16, para. 175; Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 23, para. 59, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 85. 143 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 24, paras. 156 and 187; Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 171, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 85. 144 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez, Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 179; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 166, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 87.