forced disappearance 149 as a serious human rights violation. Its prohibition has therefore attained the status of ius cogens 150 defined by the following components: (a) deprivation of liberty; (b) direct involvement by government officials or their acquiescence, and (c) refusal to acknowledge the detention and to disclose the fate and whereabouts of the person concerned. 151 128. The Court has reiterated the continuous nature of the acts constituting forced disappearance until the whereabouts of the victim is known or their remains found, and the multiple offense nature of its consequences as regards the rights recognized in the American Convention, for which the States have the corresponding duty to investigate such acts and, eventually, punish those responsible, 152 in accordance with the obligations derived from the Convention and, in particular, from the ICFDP. 153 The characterization of forced disappearance as a continuing human rights violation entailing multiple offenses 154 is consistent with the criteria of the European Court of Human Rights, 155 as well as with the decisions of international bodies 156 and high courts of the American States, including the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Argentina (hereinafter also “the Supreme Court”). 157 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, par. 158, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 62. 150 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra par. 84; Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, par. 140, and Advisory Opinion OC-26/20, November 9, 2020, supra, par. 106. 151 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par. 97, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 62. 152 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, pars. 155 to 157, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, pars. 62 and 66. 153 Article I of the ICFDP: The States Parties to this Convention undertake: a) Not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees; (b) To punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories; (c) To cooperate with one another in helping to prevent, punish, and eliminate the forced disappearance of persons; d) To take legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other measures necessary to comply with the commitments undertaken in this Convention. 154 This characterization derives not only from the definition found in Article III of the ICFDP, but also from a range of international instruments. See, Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations through Resolution 47/133 of December 18, 1992, Articles 1, 4 and 17; and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 20, 2006, Articles 2 and 8. 155 Cf. ECHR, Case of Kurt v. Turkey, no. 15/1997/799/1002. Judgment of May 25, 1998, par. 124; Case of Cyprus v. Turkey [GS], No. 25781/94. Judgment of May 10, 2001, pars. 132 to 134 and 147; Case of Varnava et al. v. Turkey [GS], No. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90, and 16073/90. Judgment of September 18, 2009, pars. 111 to 113, 117, 118, 133, 138, and 145; Case of El-Masri v. “The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” [GS], No. 39630/09. Judgment of December 13, 2012, pars. 240 and 241, and Case of Aslakhanova et al. v. Russia, No. 2944/06, 8300/07, 50184/07, 332/08, and 42509/10. Judgment of December 18, 2012, par. 122, 131, and 132. 156 Cf. Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General Comment on Article 4 of the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, January 15, 1996, UN Doc. E/CN. 4/1996/38, par. 55; Commission on Human Rights, Report submitted by Mr. Manfred Nowak, independent expert charged with examining the existing international criminal and human rights framework for the protection of persons from enforced or involuntary disappearances, pursuant to paragraph 11 of Commission resolution 2001/46, January 8, 2002, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/71, pars. 84 and 89; Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General comment on forced disappearance as a continuing offense, January 26, 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/16/48, par. 39, and Human Rights Committee, inter alia, Gyan Devi Bolakhe v. Nepal, UN Doc. CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015, Communication No. 2658/2015, September 4, 2018, pars. 7.7, 7.8, 7.15, and 7.18; Tikanath and Ramhari Kandel v. Nepal, UN Doc. CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015, Communication No. 2560/2015, August 16, 2019, pars. 7.7, 7.8 and 7.13; Midiam Iricelda Valdez Cantú and María Hortencia Rivas Rodrígez v. Mexico, UN Doc. CCPR/C/127/D/2766/2, Communication No. 2766/2016, December 23, 2019, pars. 12.5, 12.7, 12.8, and 12.10, and Malika and Merouane Bendjael v. Algeria, UN Doc. CCPR/C/128/D/2893/2016, Communication No. 2893/2016, November 3, 2020, pars. 8.4 to 8.6 and 8.12. 157 Cf. Inter alia, Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of the Argentine Republic, Judgment of August 31, 1999, case “Tarnopolsky, Daniel v. National State and others regarding hearing process,” and Judgment of May 3, 2017, 149 36