2. Analysis of the case 112. Below, the Commission shall ascertain if what happened to Victoria Grisonas, Mario Julien, and their son and daughter constituted force disappearances. Regarding this, the Commission observes that there is a great deal of information regarding the existence of a systematic plan of unlawful repression drawn up by the members of the armed and security forces, as well as a practice of forced disappearances during Argentina’s dictatorship, which has been established by the Commission in its Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Argentina and by the domestic courts in many judgments. Furthermore, it is a proven fact that the instant case took place in the framework of repressive coordination of “Operation Condor,” whose principal victims were Uruguayan nationals, most of them refugees in Argentina. It has also been proven that there was, at the time of the incidents, a systematic plan for the abduction of newborn children or in early childhood, after their parents had been disappeared or executed. There is therefore enough evidence to contend that these crimes perpetrated in the context of Argentina’s dictatorship constitute crimes against humanity, with the legal consequences that this codification entails. This characterization was recognized by the state itself in its briefs to the IACHR in the framework of the instant case. 113. In connection with Victoria Grisonas, there is no dispute about the existence of the three constitutive elements of forced disappearance. Victoria Grisonas was unlawfully deprived of her liberty in an operation carried out on September 26, 1976, in the full light of day and in front of neighbors, by a large number of heavily armed servicemen and police officers. Afterwards she was taken to a clandestine detention center called “Automotores Orletti,” where she was seen by various witnesses. There she was tortured and disappeared. Despite the intense search undertaken by her mother and mother-in-law and the filing of writs of habeas corpus, the authorities did not acknowledge that she had been detained nor did they disclose her whereabouts, which to this day continues to be unknown. 114. Regarding Mario Julien, regarding the first and second elements, referring to the deprivation of liberty and direct intervention or acquiescence by state agents, there is no dispute over the fact that Mario Julien was arrested by state agents in the same military operation in which his wife was detained. As for the third element, in connection with the refusal to recognize the detention or to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, the Commission observes that Mario Julien was seen for the last time on the day of the military operation, apparently dead, stretched out on the ground at the corner of his house surrounded by servicemen. Since then, his body continues to be disappeared. Just like what was indicated regarding Victoria Grisonas, the search carried out at the time by his next of kin, as well as the steps taken with the authorities to learn about his whereabouts, have not yielded any results whatsoever. 115. The Commission observes that, in 2012, in the framework of criminal case No. 2637/04, it was reported that, on September 27, 1976, a coffin identified as “no name” (NN) deceased the preceding day, of about 30 years of age, was brought to the graveyard of the General San Martín Municipal Cemetery. The cause of death was recorded as shot down by military authorities and in the death certificate it was indicated that the person died of a “traumatic cardiac arrest. Acute hemorrhaging. Gunshot wound.” On the basis of this information, the judicial authorities who are currently investigating the facts have ascertained that Mario Julien died in the military operation on September 26, 1976. Nevertheless, to date there has been no full clarification of what happened, including the whereabouts of his mortal remains. 116. Because of the above, the Commission deems that the third constitutive element of forced disappearance is also present and that the existence of clues about Mario Julien’s death does not alter this legal characterization. To date, his son and daughter have not had access to his mortal remains so that they can be sure about his fate. As indicated previously, in line with inter-American case law, this is the element that differentiates an extrajudicial killing from a forced disappearance. 117. Furthermore, according to the body of evidence available, at the time of his disappearance, Mario Julien held the status of refugee from UNHCR in Argentina, which he obtained in 1973. Therefore, bearing in mind