following order: (i) The deprivation of liberty by state agents; and (ii) the denial of the deprivation of liberty or the refusal to provide information about the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned. 171. Both elements will be analyzed starting from the existence of a context already recognized by the Inter-American Commission and the Inter-American Court, as well as by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, according to which at the time of these disappearances forced disappearance of persons was used systematically in the context of the struggle against terrorism. In addition, the Commission will give special consideration to certain characteristics and modus operandi of said use of forced disappearance in the terms described in the section of this report on context. 2.1 The deprivation of liberty by state agents 172. The Commission observes that with respect to three of the persons disappeared – Santiago Antezana Cueto, Néstor Rojas Medina, and Cory Clodolia Tenicela Cueto – there is information on a deprivation of liberty by state agents. 173. Specifically, as regards Santiago Antezana Cueto there is sufficient information that indicates that on May 7, 1984, he was detained by a group of persons and was subsequently turned over to officers at the military base of Acobamba, where he remained deprived of liberty for at least eight days, and it can be inferred that he was subjected to torture. In this respect, there is the testimony of his uncle, Máximo Antezana Cueto, who was detained with him and who was released on May 15, 1984. This person stated that he was tortured and that his nephew, Santiago Antezana Cueto, was detained with him at that military base at the time he was released. There is also a document from the Public Ministry that describes the detention and transfer of Santiago Antezana Cueto, and reference is made to the testimony of Ofelia Antezana Cueto, who said that she witnessed both the detention and the hand-off to the members of the military. There are also letters from family members and members of the peasant community of the zone where it is alleged that these events unfolded. The Commission also notes the complaint by Santiago Antezana Cueto’s wife, who indicated that she was informed at the military base that he had been detained there but was transferred. In other complaint filed with the Public Ministry, his wife also made reference to the testimony of another person who informed her that when that person went to look for a family member at said based, she saw Santiago Antezana Cueto and his uncle “digging land” (“escarbando tierra”). 174. As regards Néstor Rojas Medina, there is also sufficient information that indicates that on January 26, 1991, he was detained by the National Police in the zone of Tocache, department of San Martín, when he went there in searching of some belongings after a displacement in that zone two months earlier. In this respect, there is information that indicates that in June 1992, the Public Ministry communicated to the family members that the person responsible for the detention is the Chief of the Police Command of Tocache. Consuelo Leijas Landa also gave testimony, which indicates that Néstor Rojas Medina and another person were stopped by police officers as they were walking. In addition the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, on analyzing the case in 2006, made reference to a series of probative elements. Specifically, reference was made: (i) to an official note of March 21, 1991, from the Senate to the Public Ministry reporting that a senator communicated with the Chief of the Police Command of Tocache, who confirmed that Néstor Rojas Medina was turned over to the Armed Forces; (ii) the testimony for reference by his mother, Marcelina Medina Negrón, who said that she received information that he was detained by police and eight days later was transferred to a military base; and (iii) the testimony of two aunts who indicated that they had learned from a woman by the name of Maruja Ávila Pino who informed them that Néstor Rojas Medina was detained by the Police, in response to which they went to the military base where they were told that he was there. The Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman itself, in its analysis, concluded that the evidence that has been collected points to the detention by the Police, the transfer to the police facility (la Comisaría), and the subsequent transfer to the military base. Accordingly it was determined that there are sufficient elements to reasonably presume that it was a forced disappearance. 175. As regards Cory Clodolia Tenicela Tello, there is information that indicates that she was detained by agents of the State, in a public place, on October 2, 1992, since she did not have her identification. In this respect, in the writ of habeas corpus filed by her mother on October 26, 1992, it was indicated that