234. Nevertheless, the Court must not only focus on analyzing the evidence relating to whether the ten presumed victims left the Palace of Justice alive in the custody of State agents. A forced disappearance consists of numerous actions that, combined towards a single objective, violate permanently, while they subsist, different rights protected by the Convention. 336 Therefore, the examination of an enforced disappearance must be consequent with the complex violation of human rights that it entails. 337 When examining a presumed forced disappearance it is necessary to bear in mind that the deprivation of liberty of the individual is only the start of the constitution of a complex violation that extends over time until the fate and the whereabouts of the victim are known. The analysis of a possible forced disappearance should not focus in an isolated, separate and fragmented way only on the detention, the possible torture, or the risk of loss of life. 338 235. This Court also notes that the State’s discrepancy is based, to a great extent, on the conclusions of the Superior Court of Bogota in criminal proceedings during which it considered that the forced disappearance of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera and Irma Franco Pineda had been proved, but declared a partial nullity with regard to the forced disappearance of the other presumed disappeared victims considering that, in these proceedings, it had not received evidence that proved this beyond any reasonable doubt (supra paras. 177 to 180). 339 In this regard, the Court reiterates that it is not a criminal court, so that, in order to establish that a violation of the rights recognized in the Convention has occurred, it is not necessary that the State’s responsibility has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt (supra para. 81). 236. Therefore, owing to the complex nature of forced disappearance, a crime that violates multiples norms, the Court will analyze the indicative elements that, when taken together, contribute to determining whether the presumed victims left the Palace of Justice alive and were subsequently forcibly disappeared, as follows: (a) the classification of the disappeared as suspicious; (b) the failure to register and the separation of the persons considered suspicious; (c) the transfer of the suspects to military facilities where the torture and disappearances occurred; (d) the information received by the next of kin that the disappeared had left the Palace alive; (e) The Armed Forces’ denial of the detention of individuals from the Palace of Justice; (f) the alteration of the crime scene and the irregularities in the removal of corpses; (g) the threats to the family members and acquaintances; (h) the identification in videos by family members and acquaintances. The Court will also examine the State’s hypothesis according to which: (i) the disappeared persons may have died inside the Palace of Justice, and will also take into account (j) the failure to elucidate the events, in order to determine what happened to the abovementioned presumed victims. A.2.a) The classification of the disappeared as suspicious and Others v. Russia, No. 3013/04, Judgment of November 6, 2008, paras. 79 and 80. 336 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 138, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 209, para. 99. 337 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 112, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 209, para. 99. 338 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 112, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 175. 339 Those proceedings did not examine the presumed forced disappearance of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres. 79