116. In this regard, this Court has indicated that “the deprivation of liberty with which a forced disappearance begins, whatever the form it takes, is contrary to Article 7 of the American Convention.”193 Also, owing to the very nature of forced disappearance, the Court has found that the State places the individual in a grave situation of vulnerability and at risk of suffering irreparable damage to his or her personal integrity and life.194 Thus, forced disappearance violates the right to personal integrity because “the mere fact of prolonged isolation and forced lack of communication represents cruel and inhuman treatment, […] contrary to paragraphs 1 and 2 of [Article 5 of the Convention].”195 117. Similarly, the Court has recognized that placing detainees in the custody of repressive official agencies, State agents, or private individuals acting with the State’s acquiescence or tolerance who commit torture and murder with impunity represents, in itself, an infringement of the obligation to prevent violations of the right to personal integrity and to life, even if the acts giving rise to the violation cannot be proven in the specific case.196 In this case, the Court finds that it has been proved that, in Guatemala, a practice of forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and cruel treatment or torture at the hands of security agencies existed at the time of the facts (supra paras. 56 to 64). 118. Furthermore, the Court has considered that, in cases of forced disappearance, owing to the multiple and complex nature of this grave violation of human rights, its perpetration may entail the specific violation of the right to juridical personality, because the consequence of the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or the whereabouts of the person is, together with the other elements of the disappearance, the “removal from the protection of the law,” or the violation of personal security and legal certainty of the individual, which directly prevents recognition of juridical personality.197 119. In this regard, the Court has considered that the content of the right to juridical personality is, precisely, that a person is recognized everywhere as a subject of rights and obligations, and may enjoy fundamental civil rights, which involves the capacity to be the holder of rights (capacity and enjoyment) and obligations. The violation of this acknowledgment presumes absolute disavowal of the possibility of being a holder of civil and fundamental rights and obligations.198 Above and beyond the fact that the disappeared person is unable to continue enjoying and exercising other and, eventually, all the rights to Appeals Chamber of the Capital of Argentina, Case of Videla et al., Judgment of September 9, 1999 (declaring that forced disappearances are continuing crimes and crimes against humanity, and that they cannot prescribe); Constitutional Court of Bolivia, Case of José Carlos Trujillo, Judgment of November 12, 2001 (declaring that crimes of forced disappearance are continuing crimes and that the time frame for their prescription only begins once they have ceased), and Constitutional Court of Peru, Case of Castillo Páez, Judgment of March 18, 2004 (declaring, based on the provisions of the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the same case, that forced disappearance is a permanent crime until the whereabouts of the victim has been established, and referring to the multiple crimes involved). 193 Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 112, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 179. 194 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 152, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 103. 195 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 187, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 180. 196 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 175, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 181. 197 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, paras. 90 to 101, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 186. 198 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 179, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 187. 50