85. With regard to the deprivation of liberty, in the instant case, it has been proved that Mr. Flores Bedregal was arrested 135 by State agents or by persons who acted with the acquiescence of State agents at the time of the seizure of the COB building in the context of the coup d'état. Consequently, the deprivation of liberty is deemed to be proven. 86. With respect to the refusal to acknowledge the arrest, provide information, or reveal the fate or whereabouts of the victim, this Court observes that the State agents involved in the alleged removal of the body refused to provide information on the whereabouts of Mr. Flores Bedregal or his remains. This was corroborated by the judgement of December 12, 2007, which found that the defendants had made false statements pursuant to a pact of silence on the whereabouts of the alleged victim (supra para. 53). Based on these determinations and the practices of State agents and paramilitary groups in the context of the 1980 coup d'état (supra paras. 40 and 44), this Court considers the last constituent element of forced disappearance to be proven. 87. Consequently, the Court concludes that Mr. Flores Bedregal was deprived of his liberty by action and/or with the acquiescence of State agents and, to date, accurate information about his whereabouts or the location of his remains has not been provided. Therefore, the State is responsible for the forced disappearance of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal and for the continued violation of the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment, and personal liberty enshrined, respectively, in Articles 3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 7.1 of the American Convention, in relation to the provisions of article 1.1 of the same instrument, as well as article I, subparagraph (a) of the ICPPT, which prohibits the forced disappearance of persons by the States. 88. With regard to the alleged violation of Articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention, alleged by the Commission and the representatives, due to Mr. Flores Bedregal being an alternate deputy (congressman), this Court has pointed out that "the fact that a forced disappearance was perpetrated to impede the legitimate exercise of a right does not mean that the consequent violation of this right has a permanent nature." 136 Consequently, the Court considers that the State is not responsible for the violation of the right of association and political rights, enshrined in Articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. VII-II RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE DUTY TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 137 AND ARTICLES I.(b) AND III OF THE ICPPT 89. In this chapter, the Court will specifically examine the alleged violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on account of the alleged deficiencies in the criminal process entitled "Public Ministry v. Franz Pizarro Solano et al." The Court will make its analysis within the framework of its temporal jurisdiction in this case. It should be noted that the allegations related to the access of the Flores Bedregal sisters to the documents and records of the Armed Forces will be addressed in a separate chapter of this Judgment. 135 The Court notes that, in order to characterize forced disappearance, the determination of deprivation of liberty is not limited to cases of unlawful deprivation of liberty. See Case of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 28, 2005, Series C No. 138, para. 105, Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 232. 136 Cf. Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, para. 193. 137 Articles 8.1, 25.1, and 1.1 of the American Convention, respectively. 29