treatment.”114 Additionally, the Court has considered that in cases of forced disappearance, considering the multiple and complex nature of this serious human rights violation, its execution generates the violation of the right to recognition as a person before the law.115 That is because not only that the missing person cannot enjoy or exercise his or her rights, but also because the forced disappearance “is not only one of the most serious forms of placing the person outside the protection of the law, but it also entails to deny that person’s existence and to place him or her in a kind of limbo or uncertain legal situation before the society and the State.”116 56. As regards the assessment of the evidence, the Commission highlights that in the cases in which forced disappearance is alleged, the nature of this violation should be considered, whose purpose is to eliminate all the elements of the crime and, generally, is followed by a series of actions and omissions of State officials seeking to cover the event by means of actions that initiate with the refusal to recognize deprivation of liberty, continue with the disinformation or the provision of false information about the whereabouts or destination of the victim, and go to the realization of ineffective and lax investigations that, further from the truth, perpetuate the lack of knowledge regarding what happened to the victim.117 57. The Court has indicated that as it is a case of alleged forced disappearance, the circumstantial and prima facie evidence are of special importance as “this form of violation is characterized by procuring the elimination of any element that allows to confirm the detention, the whereabouts and the fate of the victims.”118 The Court has indicated that it is possible to demonstrate the disappearance of an individual by indirect and circumstantial testimonial evidence, added to logical inferences, as well as the link to a general practice of disappearances.119 58. In this way, even before the absence of direct evidence about the deprivation of liberty, the Commission has taken into consideration the circumstances that surround the disappearance, the victims’ profiles and their stigmatization due to their connection with certain institutions or functions, the existence of military or police documents that demonstrate the alleged relationship of the victims with subversive organizations, as well as the fear of being persecuted and followed that the victims communicated to their relatives, thus concluding with the State agents’ responsibility for the disappearance.120 59. The IACHR recalls that the concurrent and constitutive elements of the forced disappearance are: i) the privation of liberty; ii) the direct intervention of State agents or their acquiescence; and iii) the refusal to recognize the detention or to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the missing person.121 2. Analysis of the case 2.1 Regarding deprivation of liberty on the part of State agents 60. The Commission observes that in this case there is no direct evidence indicating that Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio was deprived of liberty of the part of State agents. However, from the record, multiple indicative, circumstantial and context elements arise, which result pertinent for the present analysis. I/A Court. H.R. Case Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez Vs. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 171; Case Anzualdo Castro Vs. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 85. 115 I/A Court. H.R. Case Anzualdo Castro Vs. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, paragraphs 91-92; Case Radilla Pacheco Vs. Mexico. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 157. 116 I/A Court. H.R. Case Anzualdo Castro Vs. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 90. 117 IACHR. Report No. 111/09. Case 11.324. Merits. Narciso González Medina. Dominican Republic. November 10, 2009. Para. 56. 118 I/A Court. H.R. Case González Medina and family Vs. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 27, 2012, Series C No. 240, para. 134. 119 I/A Court. H.R. Case Blake vs. Guatemala. Judgment of September 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 49. 120 IACHR, Report No. 5 /16, Cases 11.053, 11.054, 12.224, 12.225, and 12.823. Merits. Peru. April 13, 2016, paragraphs. 175 – 179. 121 I/A Court. H.R. Case Gómez Palomino Vs. Peru. Merits, Preliminary objections, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97; Case Ticona Estrada Vs. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 55; Case Anzualdo Castro Vs. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 60. 114 15