the other elements of the disappearance, the “removal of the protection of the law,” or the violation of personal security and legal certainty and this directly impedes recognition of juridical personality. 502 In this case, the Court considers that the presumed forcibly disappeared victims were placed in a situation of legal limbo that prevented them from holding or exercising their rights in general, which therefore resulted in a violation of the right to recognition of juridical personality. 324. Based on the above considerations, the Court concludes that Colombia is internationally responsible for the forced disappearance of 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, whose whereabouts remain unknown. The State therefore violated the rights recognized in Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1), and 3 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument and Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, to the detriment of these persons. The obligation to ensure the said rights by a diligent and effective investigation into what happened will be analyzed in Chapter XI of this Judgment. 325. The representatives also argued the violation of Articles III and XI of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance. However, the Court considers that the alleged violation of Article XI has already been examined in the considerations relating to Article 7 of the American Convention. The Court also observes that when the representatives included in their conclusions a possible violation of Article III, as a result of the forced disappearance of the victims, they failed to provide the grounds for this violation; hence the Court does not find it pertinent to make a ruling in this regard. 326. Meanwhile, with regard to Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres and Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, the Court emphasizes that the whereabouts of Ms. Castiblanco Torres were unknown for 16 years, and her body was found in the South Cemetery (supra para. 133), while, at the time of the delivery of this Judgment, the whereabouts of Ms. Esguerra Forero are undetermined, even though, since 1986, it is known that her remains may have been returned erroneously to the next of kin of one of the justices who died during the events (supra para. 307). The Court has established that the right of the next of kin of the victims to know the whereabouts of the remains of their loved ones is, in addition, to a requirement of the right to know the truth, a measure of reparation and, therefore, gives rise to the corresponding obligation of the State to satisfy these just expectations. It was extremely important for the families to receive the bodies of those who died during the events, as well as to be able to bury them in keeping with their beliefs, and to close the mourning process they underwent due to the events. 503 327. This Court considers that the way in which the bodies of those who died were treated, the burial in mass graves without respecting the basic standards that would facilitate the subsequent identification of the bodies, as well as the failure to return the bodies to the next of kin may constitute demeaning treatment, to the detriment of the person who died, as well as to the members of his or her family. 504 Thus, the failure to establish the whereabouts of Ms. Castiblanco Torres for 16 years, and of Ms. Esguerra Forero to date, 502 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, paras. 90 to 101, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 170. 503 Cf. Case of Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 245, and Case of Nadege Dozerma et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 115. 504 Mutatis mutandi, Case of Nadege Dozerma et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 117. 114