deportation, expulsion, return, or removal of those persons in any way if there is sufficient evidence of a risk of irreparable damage to their rights, even more so in the event of good reason to believe that they would be at risk of being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, or of being arbitrarily deprived of their lives. 179 However, all this openly ignored and violated in the context of the facts of the case. 180 146. Lastly, the Court reiterates that the context of what happened in this case was particularly serious, in that the State was the main factor in the crimes committed, amounting to serious human rights violations as part of a systematic and inter-State practice 181 of “state terrorism,” leading what happened to be classified by the Argentine courts as crimes against humanity (supra paras. 59 and 60). B.2. Conclusion 147. Based on all these considerations, the Court concludes that the Argentine State is responsible for the forced disappearance of Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite and Mario Roger Julien Cáceres, in violation of the rights to recognition of juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity, and to personal liberty enshrined, respectively, in Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), and 7(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with the provisions of Article 1(1), as well as Article I, paragraph (a), of the ICFDP, which prohibits state practice of the forced disappearance of persons. VII.2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS, ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW, AND INVESTIGATE SERIOUS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS 182 148. The Court will proceed to study the various and distinct issues raised in relation to the allegations of violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, and the duty to investigate serious human rights violations. A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission A.1. Regarding the alleged situation of impunity produced while Laws No. 23,492 and 23,521 were in force 149. The Commission argued that while Laws No. 23,492 and 23,521 were in force, “a situation of total impunity regarding the crimes against humanity perpetrated against the Cf. Rights and guarantees of children in the context of migration and/or in need of international protection, par. Advisory Opinion OC-21/14 dated August 19, 2014. Series A No. 21, par. 226, and Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, pars. 127 and 130. 180 The Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has addressed the issue, stating that “[w]hen it is a question of […] a refugee who suffers from forced disappearance […], rights specifically recognized in international human rights instruments are also violated.” Cf. Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, December 9, 1983, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1984/21, par. 154. Likewise, that body has indicated that, in the area of forced disappearances, "there are specific obligations" for the States, "derive[d] from the specific characteristics of the migratory phenomenon in the spheres of prevention, search, criminalization/investigation, reparation and international cooperation.” Cf. Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on enforced disappearances in the context of migration, July 28, 2017, UN Doc. A/HRC/36/39/Add.2, par. 57. 181 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, pars. 66 and 72, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, par. 99. 182 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, and Articles I, paragraph (b), and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 179 41