necessarily entails establishing the identity of the individual to whom the said remains belong. In this regard, the corresponding authority must proceed to exhume the remains promptly so that they can be examined by a competent professional.184 The forced disappearance continues in effect until the remains have been identified. 114. The phenomenon of forced disappearance of persons must be analyzed from an integral perspective owing to the multiple conducts that, combined for a single purpose, violate permanently, while they persist, rights protected by the Convention.185 The Court has verified the international consensus on the analysis of this conduct, which constitutes a grave violation of human rights given the particular significance of the offenses that comprise it and the nature of the rights harmed, which involve a total rejection of the essential principles on which the inter-American system is based,186 and its prohibition has achieved the status of jus cogens.187 115. This Court’s case law has indicated the following as concurring elements that constitute forced disappearance: (a) the deprivation of liberty; (b) the direct involvement of State agents or their acquiescence, and (c) the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the individual concerned.188 This characterization is consistent with other definitions contained in different international instruments,189 the case law of the European human rights system,190 decisions of the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,191 and decisions of high domestic courts.192 184 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, para. 82. 185 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 138, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 129. 186 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 158, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 130. 187 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 84, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 130. 188 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, para. 97, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 128. 189 Cf. Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/177, of 20 December 2006; article 7(2), subparagraph (i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9, of 17 July 1998, and preamble to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, U.N. Doc. A/RES/47/133 of 12 February 1993. 190 In this regard, the following cases of enforced disappearance of persons can be consulted: European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “ECHR”), Case of Cyprus v. Turkey [GC] (No. 25781/94), Judgment of 10 May 2001, paras. 132 to 134 and 147 to 148, and ECHR, Case of Varnava and others v. Turkey (Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90), Judgment of 10 January 2008, paras. 111 to 113, 117 and 118, 133, 138 and 145. 191 In this regard, see, Messaouda Grioua and Mohamed Grioua v. Algeria, CCPR/C/90/D/1327/2004 (2007), Communication No. 1327/2004, 16 August 2007; Yasoda Sharma and Surya Prasad Sharma v. Nepal, CCPR/C/97/D/1469/2006 (2008), Communication No. 1469/2006, 6 November 2008; Zohra Madoui and Menouar Madoui v. Algeria, CCPR/C/94/D/1495/2006 (2008), Communication No. 1495/2006, 1 December 2008, and Nydia Erika Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia, CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993, Communication No. 563/1993, 13 November 1995. 192 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Judgment of August 10, 2007 (declaring the permanent nature and multiple offenses involved in the crime of forced disappearance); Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico, Case: P./J. 87/2004, “Forced disappearance of persons. The time frame for calculating its prescription begins only when the victim appears or his or her fate has been established” (affirming that forced disappearances are permanent crimes and that prescription should begin to be calculated when they have ceased); Plenary of the Supreme Court of Chile, Case of the withdrawal of impunity from Pinochet, Judgment of August 8, 2000; Court of Appeal of Santiago de Chile, Case of Sandoval, Judgment of January 5, 2004 (all declaring that the crime of forced disappearance is continuing, a crime against humanity, cannot prescribe, and cannot be subject to amnesty); National Federal Criminal and Correctional 49