or ascertaining their fate or whereabouts.”119 The Court also referred to the standards of the United Nations Working Group on Forced and Involuntary Disappearance with respect to what differentiates forced disappearance from an extrajudicial killing, indicating that it is the refusal of the de facto perpetrators, as state agents or with their acquiescence, “or even after the execution was carried out, State officials refuse to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or refuse to acknowledge the act having been perpetrated at all.” 120 In that respect, the Court reasserted that “the existence of more or fewer clues on the death of the victims” does not change the characterization of the facts as a forced disappearance.121 108. Furthermore, the phenomenon of the disappearance of children in contexts of violence, both dictatorships and armed conflicts, and their connection with the concept of forced disappearance, have been the target of attention of the international community. 122 Regarding this, the Inter-American Court has established that abduction and separation of children from their parents, as well as the fact of remaining under the control of military troops in the course of a military operation, exert an impact on the mental, physical, and moral integrity of the children, producing feelings of loss, abandonment, intense fear, uncertainty, anguish, pain, which can vary and become more intense depending on the age and the specific circumstances.123 109. Likewise, in the Gelman Case, the Court deemed that:124 […] the abduction and suppression of the identity of María Macarena Gelman García as a consequence of the detention and subsequent transfer of her pregnant mother to another State can be qualified as a particular form of enforced disappearance of persons, for having the same purpose or effect, upon leaving her clueless due to the lack of information regarding the fate or whereabouts or the denial of acknowledgment, in the terms of the mentioned Inter-American Convention. This is consistent with the concept and the constituent elements of enforced disappearance already addressed (supra paras. 64 to 78), amongst these, the definition contained in the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance from 2007 which in its Article 2 refers to “and other form of deprivation of liberty.” 110. Furthermore, the Court has established that the situation of a child whose family identity has been illegally altered and caused by the forced disappearance of his or her father or mother “ceases only when the truth about said identity is revealed by any medium and the victim is guaranteed the factual and juridical means to recover a true identity and, where appropriate, a family relationship, with the relevant legal effects to follow.”125 111. The concurrent and constitutive elements needed to ascertain that, in a given case, there was a forced disappearance are as follows: i) deprivation of liberty; ii) the direct intervention of state agents or their authorization, support, or acquiescence; and iii) the refusal to recognize the detention or to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person.126 The Court referred to the review of the cases of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice), Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, La Cantuta, Gómez Palomino, the 19 Merchants, Bámaca Velásquez and Castillo Páez. See: I/A Court H.R. Case of Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 164. 120 I/A Court H.R. Case of Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 164, quoting, among others: Working Group on Forced or Involuntary Disappearances, Report of the Working Group on Forced or Involuntary Disappearances, General Comments on the definition of forced disappearances, A/HRC/7/2, January 10, 2008, p. 12, para. 10. 121 The Court referred to the review of the cases of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice), Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, La Cantuta, Gómez Palomino, the 19 Merchants, Bámaca Velásquez and Castillo Páez. See: I/A Court H.R. Case of Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 163. 122 IACHR. Application lodged before the Inter-American Court. Case No. 12.517. Gregoria Herminia Contreras et al., El Salvador, June 28, 2010, para. 136. 123 I/A Court H.R. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 85. 124 I/A Court H.R. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 132. 125 I/A Court H.R. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 131. 126 IACHR. Report No. 111/09. Case 11.324. Merits. Narciso González Medina. Dominican Republic. November 10, 2009, para. 130; and I/A Court H.R. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 60. 119