to infer that it was internationally responsible for the supposed enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, it had not failed to comply with the obligation established in Article I of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance, because it had not perpetrated, permitted or tolerated the supposed enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. Furthermore, the State indicated that it could not be attributed with his possible removal from legal protection or the denial of his existence in order to place him in a legal limbo, because violation of the right to juridical personality is a consequence of responsibility for an enforced disappearance, a relationship of cause and effect that is absent in this case. The State affirmed that the purpose of the Certificate of Absence due to Enforced Disappearance is to prevent the members of Mr. Osorio Rivera’s family from finding themselves in an uncertain legal situation with regard to his factual absence. Based on the foregoing, the State asked the Court to declare that it had not violated the right to recognition of juridical personality established in Article 3 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations contained in Article 1(1) of this treaty, to the detriment of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. B.2. Considerations of the Court 165. The analysis of a possible enforced disappearance should not focus merely on the detention, or the possible torture, or the risk of loss of life, from an isolated, divided and fragmented perspective, but rather the focus should be on all the facts that are present in the case that the Court is considering, taking into account the Court’s case law when interpreting the American Convention. 279 166. Two different positions have been presented as to how the Court should analyze the possible violation of Article 7 of the American Convention. On the one hand, the Commission and the representatives considered that, since the detention was the first stage in an enforced disappearance, it was unnecessary to make a detailed analysis of Article 7 and, on the same basis, the detention should be considered “illegal and arbitrary.” On the other hand, the State argued that it acted in accordance with the laws in force when it detained Jeremías Osorio Rivera in flagranti. In this regard, there is a dispute as to whether the detention was an isolated event because he was in flagrante delicto or whether it responded to the objectives of the Palmira Plan of Operations. 167. The Court observes that, even though the initial detention was carried out in keeping with the attributes of the military forces during the state of emergency in the province of Cajatambo (supra para. 123), the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Osorio Rivera by members of the Army was a step prior to his disappearance. In the Court’s opinion, the transfer of Mr. Osorio Rivera, deprived of liberty, to the Cajatambo Counter-subversive Base without being brought before the competent authority (supra para. 124) or his entry into the Base being registered evidently constituted an abuse of power that, under no concept, can be understood as the exercise of military activities to ensure national security and maintain public order on national territory, because the purpose was not to bring him before a judge or other competent authority and to make him available to them, but to execute him or make him disappear. Consequently, the State is responsible for the violation of Article 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. 168. Thus, the disappearance of Mr. Osorio Rivera is not only contrary to the right to personal liberty, but also took place in the context of a pattern of selective enforced disappearances (supra para. 155), which leads to the conclusion that it placed him in a serious situation of vulnerability 279 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 112, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 196. 61