A.4) Alleged violation of Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1) and 3 of the American Convention due to the forced disappearance 321. The Court has found that Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Irma Franco Pineda, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla and Gloria Anzola de Lanao were victims of forced disappearance (supra paras. 109, 111, 225 and 305). In this regard, the Court recalls that forced disappearance consists of multiple acts that, combined towards a sole objective, violate permanently and simultaneously several rights protected by the Convention; accordingly, the analysis of the violations committed must focus on the set of facts that constitute the disappearance and not on the detention, the possible torture, the danger to life, and the absence of recognition of juridical personality separately (supra para. 233). 322. The Court notes that the evacuation of the presumed victims alive, in the custody of State agents, without being registered or brought before the competent authorities, entailed a deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 7 of the American Convention that constituted the first element of their forced disappearance. Also, owing to the very nature of forced disappearance, the Court finds that the State placed these persons in a situation of severe vulnerability and risk of suffering irreparable harm to their personal integrity and life. 498 In this regard, forced disappearance violates the right to physical integrity because the mere fact of prolonged isolation and coercive solitary confinement represents cruel and inhuman treatment contrary to Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. 499 The Court also finds it reasonable to presume, based on all the evidence, that the victims underwent treatment contrary to the inherent dignity of a human being while they were in the State’s custody, which constituted a violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 323. Moreover, the Court has recognized that subjecting detainees to official repressive units, State agents or individuals acting with their acquiescence or tolerance who practice torture and murder with immunity represents, in itself, a violation of the obligation to prevent violations of physical integrity and life, even if it is not possible to prove the violations in this specific case. 500 Furthermore, owing to the very nature of enforced disappearance, the victim is in a situation of increased vulnerability, which gives rise to the risk that several rights may be violated, including the right to life. In addition, enforced disappearance has frequently included the execution of the detainee in secret and without any type of trial, followed by the concealment of the corpse in order to erase any material trace of the crime and to ensure the impunity of those who committed it, and this signifies a violation of the right to life recognized in Article 4 of the Convention. 501 Moreover, this Court has considered that the execution of an enforced disappearance entails the specific violation of the right to recognition of juridical personality, because the result of the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or the whereabouts of the person is, together with 498 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 152, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 168. 499 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of June 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 187, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 105. 500 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of June 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 175, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 106. 501 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of June 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 157, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 169. 113