161. In this case, as was established in the preceding section, the proceedings instituted in connection with the disappearance of Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez were discriminatory and incompatible with the minimum standards of due diligence and the guarantee of a reasonable time. In particular, the Commission noted that the investigation did not include the logical lines of inquiry that emerged from the information available, some of which could have involved state agents. 162. In this regard, the Court has reiterated that failure to investigate alleged violations committed against someone when there are suggestions of involvement of state agents “prevents the State from presenting a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the [facts] alleged, and disproves the arguments concerning its responsibility, with adequate probative elements.” 207 The Court has considered such failure to clarify the facts as a factor to be borne in mind in accrediting alleged violations and the attendant international and responsibility.208 163. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Commission considers that in this particular case the negligence with which the investigations have been conducted have created a situation of complete uncertainty as to what happened to Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez, and the Commission lacks a consistent array of evidence that is sufficiently specific about the facts in the case to categorize what happened as a forced disappearance. In particular, although there are elements to suggest that certain actors, including state agents, may have had a hand in the victim's disappearance, there are no circumstantial elements or other indicia to show that Ms. Gutiérrez was in state custody at any time. 3.2 The duty to protect the rights to life and humane treatment of Mayra Angelina Gutiérrez 164. Article 4(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights provides, “Every person has the right to have his life respected [and] “[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." Article 5(1) of the American Convention provides, "Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 165. The Court has established that the rights to life and human treatment are of critical importance in the Convention. According to Article 27(2) of the said treaty, these rights form part of the nonderogable nucleus because they cannot be suspended in case of war, public danger or other threats to the independence or security of the States Parties.209 The Court reiterates that states should not merely abstain from violating rights, but must adopt positive measures to be determined based on the specific needs of protection of the subject of law, either because of their personal situation or because of the specific circumstances in which they find themselves.210 [… continuation] of Kurt v. Turkey. Application No. 15/1997/799/1002. Judgment of 25 May 1998, paras. 124-128; Case of Çakici v. Turkey, Application no. 23657/94. Judgment of 8 July 1999, paras. 104-106. As regards national tribunals, see, inter alia: Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, judgment of August 10, 2007; Case of Withdrawal of Immunity of Pinochet, Supreme Court of Justice of Chile, en banc, judgment of August 8, 2000; Case of Castillo Páez, Constitutional Court of Peru, judgment of March 18, 2004. 207 I/A Court H.R.,Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, par. 353. 208 I/A Court H.R.,Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, par. 354. 209 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 119. I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. F“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 243. Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, par. 81; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. Series C No. 146, para. 154; and Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 111. 210 34