and risk of suffering irreparable harm to his personal integrity and his life. The Court finds it reasonable to presume, based on the body of evidence, that Mr. Osorio Rivera suffered treatment contrary to the dignity inherent in the human being while he was in the custody of the State. The foregoing constituted a violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. In addition, the Court considers that the Commission’s argument that this treatment should be classified as torture refers to violations that have already been examined under the right to personal integrity, so that it does not find it necessary to make an additional ruling in that regard. 169. In the case of Article 4 of the American Convention, the Court has considered that, owing to the nature of enforced disappearance, the victim is in an aggravated situation of vulnerability, which gives rise to the risk that several different rights may be violated, including the right to life. In addition, the Court has established that enforced disappearance has frequently included the execution of those detained, in secret and without any type of trial, followed by the concealment of the corpse in order to erase any material trace of the crime and to ensure the impunity of those who committed it, which signifies a violation of the right to life recognized in Article 4 of the Convention. 280 170. With regard to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court notes that, according to its most recent case law, owing to the multiple and complex nature of this gross human rights violation, an enforced disappearance can include a specific violation of this right, because the consequence of the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or whereabouts of the person is, together with the other elements of the disappearance, the “removal from the protection of the law” or the violation of the personal and legal safety of the individual that directly prevents the recognition of juridical personality. 281 Over and above the fact that the disappeared person cannot continue enjoying and exercising others and, eventually, all the rights to which he is entitled, his disappearance seeks not only one of the most serious forms of removing a person from the whole sphere of the law, but also to deny his very existence, leaving him in a sort of legal limbo or indeterminate legal situation before society and the State. 282 In this case, the Court considers that Jeremías Osorio Rivera was placed in a situation of legal indetermination that prevented him from the possibility of possessing or exercising his rights in general, so that it led to a violation of his right to juridical personality. 171. Lastly, based on all the preceding considerations, the Court concludes that Peru incurred international responsibility for the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera that started on April 30, 1991, without his whereabouts being known to date, so that it violated the rights recognized in Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1), and 3 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. Taking this into account, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to personal liberty and personal integrity, to life, and to juridical personality of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, in relation to the provisions of Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The assessment of the obligation to ensure the said rights by a diligent and effective investigation into what happened will be made in the following chapter of this Judgment. 280 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 157, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 185. 281 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, paras. 90 and 91, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012, Series C No. 250, para. 118. 282 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, paras. 90 and 91, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 188. 62