VII.1 RIGHTS TO RECOGNITION OF JURIDICAL PERSONALITY, TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, TO HUMANE TREATMENT, AND TO LIFE, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 148 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 122. The Commission indicated that “This is an emblematic case of grave human rights violations” due to coordinated actions of repression by Argentina and Uruguay, the practice of forced disappearance, and the systematic plan to appropriate children. It argued that there is no dispute as to the existence of the three elements of forced disappearance of which Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite was a victim, as she was illegally deprived of her liberty by heavily armed military and police agents and later taken to Automotores Orletti, where she was tortured and finally disappeared. Despite the efforts of her relatives to locate her, the authorities did not acknowledge that she had been detained or disclose her whereabouts, “which to this day remain unknown.” 123. Regarding Mario Roger Julien Cáceres, it indicated that, although the investigations carried out have led the State authorities to conclude that he died in that operation, "to date there has been no full clarification of what happened, including the whereabouts of his remains.” It argued that the three elements constitutive of forced disappearance are present, and that the incident is especially egregious because at the time of his disappearance, the alleged victim had refugee status. 124. The representative indicated that this case involves extremely important elements, including "transnational persecution and crimes" carried out in the context of the “Condor Plan,” which entailed the commission of "very serious crimes against humanity" against the Julien Grisonas family perpetrated by agents of the dictatorship that seized power in 1976 and established a regime of “State terrorism” in Argentina. 125. The State argued that domestic courts have found that the operation of September 26, 1976 "took place in the context of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population." It noted that with the advent of democracy, Argentina had conducted a process of memory, truth, and justice to provide reparations for the consequences of those crimes, as well as to investigate, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators. It added that in a public act held on March 24, 2004, then-President Néstor Kirchner “asked for forgiveness on behalf of the State […] for so many atrocities.” Consequently, “it is the understanding of the Argentine State that it has recognized its international responsibility for the crimes committed […] between 1976 and 1983, including those that harmed the Julien Grisonas family.” 126. It argued that “what is apparently under discussion […] is […] the effectiveness of the memory, truth, justice, and reparation process implemented,” making it necessary for “this Court to recognize and support” that process. It asked that this entire context be taken into account in the comprehensive analysis of the case. B. Considerations of the Court 127. In its case law, the Inter-American Court has upheld the international consensus of when necessary, establish such mechanisms.” Cf. Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons, UN Doc. CED/C/7, May 8, 2019, Principle 12. 148 Articles 3, 7, 5, and 4 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument and with Article I, paragraph a), of the ICFDP. 35