4 13. It is evident that this title alludes to the capacity to enjoy rights, which belongs to human beings in general, but not necessarily to the enjoyment or exercise of all the rights. Indeed, the scope of the enjoyment, that is, the definition or concrete integration of the said capacity, and also the possibility of exercising the rights are subject to positive law (objective) in function of the place of the individual in the totality of the juridical relations in which he participates or within which he is inserted. A minor, who lacks maturity and competence to determine his own conduct, freely and in an informed manner, and thus produce juridical consequences that may benefit or prejudice him, cannot have title to the enjoyment and exercise of rights that are, to the contrary, attributed to the adult person. There are numerous and reasonable distinctions in this area; thus, between the situation of the citizen, who is assigned full political rights, and the person who is not a citizen; or between the head of the household who has specific powers and obligations and the person who lacks them; or between the professional who has a distinctive status, and the person who does not have that preparation and activity, etcetera. 14. In view of the foregoing, disregarding the juridical personality would be equivalent to the absolute denial of the possibility that a human being could have title to rights and obligations. In this case, he would be treated as an object - the matter of a juridical relation, not the subject of it - or he would be reduced to the condition of slave. Accordingly, we can infer that the right to the recognition of juridical personality has its own substance or entity and cannot be seen as a reflection of a de facto situation that would deprive the individual of the possibility of exercising the rights to which, however, he has not been refused ownership. The latter would involve a juridical situation - disregard of the personality of this individual - while the former would constitute a fact, extremely deplorable or limiting perhaps, but not necessarily, in itself, annulling the juridical personality of the human being who suffers it. 15. If we maintained that forced disappearance, which is an extreme form of illegal deprivation of liberty, entails disregard of the juridical personality and, consequently, violation of Article 3 of the Convention, we would have to reach the same conclusion in the case of arbitrary detention or of absolute, or even relative, solitary confinement. Further still, in such cases, and evidently in that of forced disappearance, we would have to conclude that the subject is also deprived of all the rights that he is unable to exercise due to the factual impediment that disappearance, solitary confinement or detention imposes on him: the right or freedom to circulate, expression, meeting, association, property, work, education and so on. It is obvious that such a conclusion would be excessive from the juridical perspective, which is the one that governs these observations. 16. Finally, the judgment points out that Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, which formulates a characterization of this on which the national criminal figure can be constructed, alludes to the violation of some rights - and in this sense, that description is related to the fifth paragraph of the preamble of the Convention, which refers to the violation of many essential rights of the human being - which do not include the recognition of juridical personality. However, the rights to liberty, to information about the disappeared person, to the recognition of the capture and the exercise of legal remedies and procedural guarantees are to be found in the above-mentioned Article II.