113. In its case law, the Court has developed the permanent or continuing nature of enforced disappearance and the fact that it violates multiple norms. This characterization of enforced disappearance as permanent or continuing and as violating multiple norms is revealed not only by its definition in Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, 206 to which the Peruvian State is a party (supra para. 14), the travaux préparatoires of this Convention, 207 its preamble and its articles, but also by other definitions contained in different international instruments, 208 which also indicate as concurrent and constituent elements of enforced disappearance: (a) the deprivation of liberty; (b) the direct intervention of State agents or their acquiescence, and (c) the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or the whereabouts of the person concerned. 209 This characterization is consistent with other definitions contained in different international instrument, 210 the case law of the European human rights system, 211 decision of the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 212 and decisions of domestic high courts. 213 206 Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons stipulates that: “forced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.” The pertinent part of Article III of this instrument indicates that: “[t]his offense shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined.” 207 Cf. Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1987-1988, Chapter V.II. This offense “will be considered continuing or permanent as long as the whereabouts or the fate of the victim has not been established” (OEA/CP-CAJP, Report of the President of the Working Group responsible for examining the draft Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, doc. OEA/Ser.G/CP/CAJP-925/93 rev.1, of January 25, 1994, p. 10). 208 Cf. United Nations, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance, General comment on article 4 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of 15 January 1996, E/CN. 4/1996/38, para. 55, and article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. 209 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 97, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 97. 210 Cf. Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/177 of 20 December 2006; paragraph 2, subparagraph (i) of Article 7 of the Statute of Rome of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9, of 17 July 1998, and Preamble to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, A/RES/47/133, 18 December 1992. 211 In this regard, the following cases of enforced disappearance of persons can be consulted: ECHR, Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, 10 May 2001, paras. 132 to 134, 147 and 148, 2001-IV, and ECHR, Varnava and Others. v. Turkey, nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, 18 September 2009, paras. 111 to 113, 117, 118, 133, 138 and 145. 212 In this regard, see, Messaouda Grioua and Mohamed Grioua v. Algeria, CCPR/C/90/D/1327/2004 (2007), Communication No. 1327/2004, 16 August 2007; Yasoda Sharma and Surya Prasad Sharma v. Nepal, CCPR/C/94/D/1469/2006, Communication No. 1469/2006, 6 November 2008; Zohra Madoui and Menouar Madoui v. Algeria, CCPR/C/94/D/1495/2006 Communication No. 1495/2006, 1 December 2008, and Nydia Erika Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia, CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993, Communication No. 563/1993, 13 November 1995. 213 Cf. Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Judgment of August 10, 2007 (declaring the permanent nature and multiple offenses involved in the offense of enforced disappearance); Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico, Judgment: P./J. 87/2004, “Enforced disappearance of persons. The time frame for calculating the statute of limitations only begins when the victim appears or his fate has been established” (affirming that enforced disappearance is a permanent offense and that the statute of limitations must be calculated from the time that it ceases to be committed); Case of the indictment of Pinochet, Plenary of the Supreme Court of Chile, Judgment of August 8, 2000; Case of Sandoval, Court of Appeal of Santiago de Chile, Judgment of January 5, 2004 (declaring that the offense of enforced disappearance is continuing, a crime against humanity, and is not subject to the statute of limitations or to amnesty); Case of Videla et al., National Federal Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Capital of Argentina, Judgment of September 9, 1999 (declaring that enforced disappearances are continuing offenses and crimes against humanity, and that they are not subject to the statute of limitations); Case of José Carlos Trujillo, Constitutional Court of Bolivia, Judgment of November 12, 2001 (declaring that the offense of enforced disappearance is a continuing offense and that the statute of limitations must be calculated from the time that it ceases), and Case of Castillo 42