34 96. As to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the American Convention (supra paras. 77 to 79) the Court has deemed that the right to juridical personality is the right, precisely: [t]o be recognized everywhere as a person having rights and obligations, and to enjoy the basic civil rights, [which] implies the capacity of being the holder of rights (capacity and enjoyment) and obligations; the violation of this recognition means absolutely negating the possibility of being a holder of civil and fundamental rights and obligations.117 97. This right represents a parameter for the determination of whether a person is a holder of the rights in question and whether he or she can exercise those rights;118 for that reason, the violation of that acknowledgment makes the individual vulnerable before the State and individuals.119 In this way, the right to juridical personality entails a general duty of the State to provide the legal means and conditions so that this right may be freely and fully exercised by individuals120 or the obligation not to violate that right.121 98. This Tribunal has deemed that in cases of forced disappearance, considering the multiple and complex nature of this grave human rights violation, its execution may entail the specific infringement to the right to juridical personality. Beyond the fact that a disappeared person can no longer exercise and enjoy other rights, and possibly all of the rights, to which he or she is entitled, his or her disappearance seeks not only one of the most serious ways of taking a person outside the protection of the law, but also the denial of that person's existence, placing him or her in a kind of limbo or uncertain legal situation before society and the State.122 99. Based on the foregoing, though this Court had established in previous cases that said definition did not expressly include the recognition of juridical personality among the elements classifying this complex crime,123 it is worth noting that, pursuant to the principle of effectiveness and the needs of protection in cases of people or groups in vulnerable 117 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 179; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 87, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 155. 118 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 188; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 88, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 156. 119 Cf. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 179; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 88, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 156. 120 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 118, para. 189; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 156, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 101. 121 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 156. 122 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 90; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 157, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 98. 123 Cf. Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala, Merits, supra note 117, para. 180; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra note 1, para. 69, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 99.