70. In keeping with the above, the need to address forced disappearance integrally has also led
this Court analyze it as a complex form of the joint violation of several rights recognized in the
Convention owing to the multiple conducts that, united by a single purpose, violate continuously,
while they subsist, the rights protected by this instrument, in particular the rights to recognition of
juridical personality, life, personal integrity and personal liberty recognized in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7
of the Convention, respectively.107
71. The Court notes that, in the instant case, although the forced disappearances alleged by the
Commission and the representatives began on April 28 and 29, 1982, – that is, prior to the Court’s
temporal jurisdiction – it has been proved that the whereabouts of these persons is still unknown.
Consequently, and in light of the permanent nature of this type of gross human rights violation and
the fact that the whereabouts of the alleged victims remain unknown, it is evident that the Court has
jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the alleged forced disappearances.
72. Having established this, the Court notes that it has been proved that at least three people were
disappeared at the time of the massacre perpetrated in the village of Los Josefinos on April 28 and
29, 1982, namely: José Álvaro López Mejía, Fabio González and Florenci Quej Bin. Regarding Mr.
López Mejía, his mother, María del Carmen Pérez, indicated that soldiers “took him away and since
then, we known nothing.”108 Also, Mr. López Mejía’s sister indicated that when her father when to
search for him in the days following the massacre, a soldier warned him to “stop looking for him”
because, if not, he would be disappeared also. 109 Meanwhile, the daughter of Fabio González, Gloria
Otilia González Medina, indicated that Mr. González was taken directly from his home by members
of the army during the massacre, recounting that the soldiers “entered, having broken down the
door and took him away; they beat his back; there were several soldiers and we screamed and [the
soldiers] threatened to burn down everything if we continued screaming. They didn’t explain
anything.”110 In the case of Florenci Quej Bin, the body of evidence reveals that he was captured by
state agents when he returned to his home on the day of the massacre. 111 According to the
Commission and the representatives, to date, there is no information on the whereabouts of these
three individuals. The State did not submit specific arguments in this regard.
73.
The Court reiterates, as it has in previous cases, that it must apply a standard of proof that
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, para. 55; Human Rights Commission, 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, paras. 84 and 89; Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearances, General comment on enforced disappearance as a continuous crime, January 26, 2011, UN Doc.
A/HRC/16/48, para. 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, paras. 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, paras. 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, paras. 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, paras. 8.4 to 8.6 and
8.12.
Cf. inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 150, 155 to 158, 186 and 187; Case
of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, paras. 158, 163 to 167, 196 and 197;
Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009.
Series C No. 202, paras. 68 to 103, and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of
November 20, 2018. Series C No. 363, para. 81.
107
108
Cf. Notarized testimonial statement by María del Carmen Pérez of June 30, 2007 (evidence file, folio 2632).
109
Cf. Notarized testimonial statement by Alba Maritza López Mejía of January 23, 2021 (evidence file, folio 23899).
110
Cf. Notarized statement by Gloria Otilia González Medina of June 30, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3743.
111
Cf. Statement by Francisco Quej Xitumul, undated (evidence file, folio 2632).
22