of the deprivation of liberty, in violation of Article 7(1) of the American Convention, which should be understood only as the beginning of the configuration of the complex violation of rights amounting to forced disappearance. 168 137. The alleged victim's stay in the clandestine center violated her right to personal integrity in view of the acts of torture she suffered and the other conditions to which she was subjected that impacted her personal dignity. At the same time, prolonged isolation and coercive solitary confinement in themselves amount to cruel and inhuman treatment that violates Article 5(1) and (2) of the American Convention. 169 Likewise, Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite was in the custody of the government’s repressive bodies that acted with impunity to torture, murder, and cause forced disappearance of persons, which represents, in itself, a violation of the duty to prevent violations of the rights to integrity and life, recognized in Articles 5 and 4 of the Convention, even if the fact of depriving a person of life cannot be proven in this specific case. 170 138. For its part, the authorities’ refusal to recognize the deprivation of liberty or the whereabouts of the person, together with the other elements of the disappearance, amounted to removal of the protection of the rule of law or a violation of legal certainty, directly preventing recognition of juridical personality. 171 The disappearance of Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite therefore placed her in a situation of legal indeterminacy, which prevented her from being the bearer of or effectively exercising her rights in general, amounting to a violation of her right to recognition of juridical personality enshrined in Article 3 of the American Convention. 172 139. Based on this account, it is an undisputed fact that to date, uncertainty persists as to the fate or whereabouts of Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite, so that her forced disappearance continues, making its nature permanent and meaning the State is internationally responsible. 140. Regarding Mario Roger Julien Cáceres, the established facts show that he was detained during the operation of September 26, 1976, and was arbitrarily deprived of his life as a result of the intervention of State agents. Afterwards the State refused to provide any information about his fate or the location of his remains. Indeed, the national courts have concluded that on the day of the operation, after Julien Cáceres' failed attempt to escape, he was “gunned down” by the agents. One of the witnesses to the incident stated that after the alleged victim was detained, "[his] body fell onto the street" and was then picked up and placed in a vehicle by the personnel who participated in the operation (supra para. 91). Regarding the whereabouts of his remains, without entering into any analysis of the relevance of arguments about specific violations, the Court confirms that, to date, no unequivocal information is available to identify them. 141. In view of this, the Court finds that the circumstances described indicate that the actions taken in this case must also be classified as forced disappearance. Indeed, according to the and [was] run by members of the Argentine and Uruguayan security forces.” Cf. Commission on Human Rights, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, January 22, 1981, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1435, par. 58.d. See, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, par. 53. 168 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, par. 112, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, par. 172. 169 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, pars. 156 and 187, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, par. 194. 170 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, par. 175, and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia, supra, par. 194. 171 Cf. Case of Anzulado Castro v. Peru, supra, pars. 90 and 92; and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, par. 172. 172 Cf. Case of Anzulado Castro v. Peru, supra, par. 101, and Case of Vasquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 139. 39