29 85. Without prejudice to the fact that the Court has considered that the practice of disappearances often involves secret execution without trial, followed by concealment of the body to eliminate any material evidence of the crime and to ensure the impunity of those responsible,102 the Tribunal has also held that subjecting a person to official, repressive bodies that practice torture and assassination with impunity is itself a breach of the duty to prevent violations of the rights to life and physical integrity of the person, even if that particular person is not tortured or assassinated, or if those facts cannot be proven in a concrete case.103 In addition, this Tribunal has mentioned that forced disappearance violates the right to humane treatment since “the mere subjection of an individual to prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication is in itself cruel and inhuman treatment […] incompatible with paragraphs 1 and 2 of [Article 5 of the Convention].”104 86. In the instant case, Mr. Anzualdo Castro was abducted or deprived of his liberty and taken to a secret detention center. Within said context of systematic practice of forced disappearance, and given the modus operandi of the disappearances at the time of the events, the coercive relocation of Mr. Anzualdo Castro to the SIE basements and the subsequent incommunication to which he was subjected, have certainly caused him strong feelings of fear, anguish and defenselessness and it is reasonable to assume that state agents could have subjected him to torture or cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and, later on, killed him. Based on the foregoing reasons, the State failed to comply with its duty to ensure every subject to its jurisdiction the right not to have one’s life taken arbitrarily and the right to humane treatment, which comprises the reasonable prevention of situations that could result in the violation of these rights, specially in the practice of forced disappearance. Therefore, the State is responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment and life of Mr. Anzualdo Castro. * * * 87. As to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention (supra paras. 56 and 57) the Court has noted that the content itself of the right to juridical personality is that every person has the right To be recognized everywhere as a person having rights and obligations, and to enjoy the basic civil rights [which] implies the capacity to be the holder of rights (capacity and exercise) and obligations; the violation of this recognition presumes an absolute disavowal of the possibility of being a holder of [the]h rights and obligations105. 102 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 157 and Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia, supra note 63, para. 59; and Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 63, para. 103. 103 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 175 and Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia, supra note 63, para. 59. 104 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 156 and 187; and Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia, supra note 63, para. 58; and Case of Chaparro Alvarez and Lapo Iñiguez V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 171. 105 Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 42, para. 179. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico V. Dominican Republican. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 176; Case of the Saramaka People V. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 166; and Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 188.