18 Article 4 of the Convention. This situation is emphasized when dealing with a systematic pattern of human rights violations. In addition, the Court has established that the failure to investigate the facts is a violation of the legal duty under Article 1(1) of the Convention to ensure the rights recognized by Article 4(1) therein, which is the duty is to ensure every person subject to its jurisdiction the inviolability of the right to life and the right not to have one's life taken arbitrarily, which comprises the reasonable prevention of situations that could result in the violation of that right.41 61. In the instant case, Renato Ticona was illegally detained by state agents, and until now, there is no information regarding his fate and whereabouts. In this sense, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 7 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Renato Ticona Estrada, which constitutes an ongoing violation with legal consequences that extend until the present date. 62. Furthermore, taking into account the acceptance of the facts and the acquiescence of the State, the context of the instant case, the nature of the elements of forced disappearance and the impairment to the physical, mental and moral integrity of Renato Ticona (supra para. 23, 51 and 58) the Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Renato Ticona Estrada. 63. Likewise, this Court deems that the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona Estrada has represented a risk in his life, situation that became more serious due to the systematic pattern of human rights violations that existed in Bolivia at the time of the events, which has been acknowledged by the State in the instant case. As a result, this Tribunal considers that the State is responsible for the violation of such right as enshrined in Article 4(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Renato Ticona Estrada. 64. In addition, the Commission as well as the representative alleged the noncompliance of Articles I and XI of the IACFDP and the State acknowledged its international responsibility for that fact. 65. Article I.a) of the IACFDP provides that State Parties undertake not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees. In this sense and in view of the acquiescence made by the State, as well as the permanent nature of the forced disappearance, the Court finds that the State has failed to comply with the obligation established in said Article of the IACFDP, which entered into force on June 5, 1999, since the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona persists until now. 66. Article XI of the IACFDP establishes the obligation of State Parties to held every person deprived of liberty in an officially recognized place of detention and be brought before a competent judicial authority without delay, in accordance with applicable domestic law. Furthermore, it declares that States Parties shall establish and maintain official up-to-date registries of their detainees and, in accordance with their domestic law, shall make them available to relatives, judges, attorneys, any other person having a legitimate interest, and other authorities. 41 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 16, para. 188 and Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C Nº. 5, para. 198.