112. In its consistent case law since 1988,180 the Court has established the permanent or continuing nature of the forced disappearance of persons, which has been recognized repeatedly by international human rights law. The Court classified the series of multiple and continuing violations of various rights protected by the Convention as forced disappearance of persons based on the development that, at the time, had taken place in the sphere of international human rights law.181 This Court’s case law has been a pioneer in the consolidation of a comprehensive perspective on the multiple violation of the rights affected and the continuing or permanent nature of the forced disappearance of persons,182 in which the act of disappearance and its execution start with the deprivation of the liberty of the person and the subsequent absence of information on his or her fate, and remains while the whereabouts of the disappeared person remain unknown or until his or her remains have been identified with certainty.183 This Court developed this characterization of forced disappearance even before the definition contained in Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 113. As already indicated, the acts that constitute forced disappearance are of a permanent nature while the victim’s whereabouts are unknown or until his or her remains have been found. However, particularly with regard to the latter aspect, this does not refer merely to the act of finding the remains of a certain person; but rather, logically, must be accompanied by collecting evidence or making analyses that prove that the remains really correspond to that person. Therefore, in cases of alleged forced disappearance in which there are indications that the alleged victim has died, the determination of whether forced disappearance did occur and that it has ceased, in cases when the remains have been found, 180 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 155, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 50. 181 In the sphere of international human rights law, the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances developed an operational definition of the phenomenon in the 1980s. The conceptual elements established by this Working Group were subsequently reiterated in the definitions included in diverse international instruments. Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 82, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 50. See also, the Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Commission on Human Rights, thirty-seventh session, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1435, of 22 January 1981, para. 4; Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Commission on Human Rights, thirty-ninth session, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1983/14, of 21 January 1983, paras. 130 to 132, and Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Commission on Human Rights, Report on the visit to Sri Lanka by three members of the Working Group, 7 to 18 October 1991, E/CN.4/1992/18/Add.1 of 5 January 1992. 182 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 155 to 157; Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, paras. 163 to 166; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, para. 147; Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 65; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 92; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 82; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, paras. 52 and 112; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra, para. 52; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 54; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 59; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, paras. 139 and 140; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 81; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, paras. 59 and 60; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, supra, para. 103; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 74; Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 91; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 82, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 50. The European Court of Human Rights also considered the continuing or permanent nature of the forced disappearance of persons in the Case of Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], No. 25781/94, paras. 136, 150 and 158, 2001-IV. 183 Cf. inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 155 to 157, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 50. 48