19 67. The forced disappearance of people is made up of certain elements (supra para. 55) which form part of an ongoing violation. When analyzing Article XI of the IACFDP, this Court deems that the State's duty to held detainees in an officially recognized place of detention does not constitute an element of forced disappearance, but a guarantee for such person deprived of liberty to have his human rights respected under such circumstances. By virtue of said distinction, this Court considers that the guarantee established in said Article, inasmuch as it is not an element of forced disappearance of persons, does not share the characteristic of being a continuous violation and therefore, it must be understood that said obligation, according to the IACFDP, exists since that treaty entered into force on June 5, 1999. As a consequence, this Tribunal concludes that the State did not fail to comply with Article XI of the IACFDP. Recognition of Juridical Personality 68. In relation to Article 3 (Recognition of Juridical Personality) of the Convention, the Commission requested the Court to declare the violation of such right upon considering that the purpose of those who carried out the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona was to act outside the law, hiding all the evidence related to the crimes and escaping from being punished. Moreover, it pointed out that as a result of the disappearance of Renato Ticona, a legal limbo occurred that was formalized through the state refusal to acknowledge that Mr. Ticona Estrada was in their power and the contradictory information regarding his fate. The foregoing prevented Mr. Ticona Estrada or his relatives from exercising their rights, apart from keeping the latter uninformed regarding his fate or whereabouts. The Commission emphasized that “for Renato Ticona Estrada, the disappearance resulted in the denial of the exercise of the rights every human being has by suppressing the due protection and denying the recognition as a person before the law”. The representative agreed with the argument of the Commission and the State acquiesced to such claims. 69. As the Court has observed, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons does not expressly refer to the juridical personality among the elements that typify the complex crime of forced disappearance of persons.42 Furthermore, the Tribunal has indicated that said right has its own juridical content, that is, the right every person has to be recognized everywhere as a person having rights and obligations,43 in this regard, the violation of this recognition presumes an absolute disavowal of the possibility of being a holder of such rights and obligations.44 Based on the foregoing, in exercise of the power vested in it by Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court considers that in the instant case, there is no fact leading to conclude that the State has violated Article 3 of the American Convention. * 42 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C Nº. 70, para. 180. 43 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 42, para. 12 and 179; Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C Nº 130, para. 176; and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, reparations, and costs. . Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C Nº. 173, para. 120. 44 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 42, para. 179; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 43, para. 120; and Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C Nº. 146, para. 188.