relation to the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights, the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law and the mandates of Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, and (3) the violation of the right to physical integrity of the next of kin of Mr. Garzón Guzmán, in relation to the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights. VIII-1 RIGHTS TO THE RECOGNITION OF JURIDICAL PERSONALITY, PERSONAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND LIFE, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT THE RIGHTS55 AND THE MANDATES OF ARTICLE I(A) OF THE INTERAMERICAN CONVENTION ON FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS A. Considerations of the Court 62. This Court has repeatedly referred to the multiple nature of a forced disappearance and its permanent and continuous character, which begins with the deprivation of freedom and the lack of information on the person’s fate and it continues until the person’s whereabouts is known or the remains are identified with certainty.56 The Court has also established that forced disappearance is a human rights violation comprised of three concurrent elements: a) the deprivation of freedom; b) the direct intervention of State agents or their acquiescence and c) the refusal to recognize the detention or the lack of information on the fate or whereabouts of the person.57 These elements have also been identified in the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons;58 the Statute of Rome;59 the definitions of the UN Working Group on Forced or Involuntary Disappearances;60 as well as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights61 and the decisions of different international instances. 62 In addition, this Court has referred on different occasions to cases of forced disappearances in Ecuador.63 63. Thus, by virtue of the State’s recognition of responsibility, its consistent case law in the area of forced disappearance and the proven facts, the Court does not deem it necessary to rule on the elements that comprise forced disappearance and its configuration in this specific case, nor on the scope of the violation of the rights to recognition of juridical personality, 55 Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Cf. Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Article III; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 155 to 157 and Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355, para. 65. 56 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97 and Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru, supra, paras. 63 and 80. 57 58 Cf. Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Article II. 59 Cf. Statute of Rome. Article 7(1)(i). Cf. Council of Human Rights. Report of the Working Group on Forced or Involuntary Disappearances. Best practices of the national criminal legislation in the area of forced disappearances. A/HRC/16/48/Add.3, December 28, 2010, paras. 21-32. 60 Cf. ECHR, Cypress v. Turkey [GS], No 25781/94, Judgment of May 10, 2001, paras. 132 to 134 and 147 to 148 and ECHR, Varnava et al. v. Turkey [GS], Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 y 16073/90, January 10, 2008. 61 Cf. Committee of Human Rights, Nydia Erika Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia (Communication No. 563/1993), UN. Doc. CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993, November 13, 1995, para. 8.3 to 8.6 and Committee of Human Rights, Messaouda Grioua and Mohamed Grioua v. Algeria (Communication No. 1327/2004), UN Doc. CCPR/C/90/D/1327/2004, July 10, 2007, para. 7(2), 7(5) to 7(9). 62 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra and Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 332. 63 16