that the Inter-American Court has considered international protection by means of the refugee status as a category banning discrimination and requiring special measures from the state, the Commission considers that the forced disappearance of Mario Julien is especially aggravated by the fact that he is a refugee.127 118. Regarding Anatole and Victoria Larrabeiti Yáñez, the Commission must examine if the facts that have been established in the instant case match the concept of forced disappearance. The Commission observes that there is no dispute about their illegal detention by state agents in the operation of September 26, 1976 when they were 4 years old and 16 months of age, respectively, at the time. It has also been confirmed that they were taken together with their mother to “Orletti,” where they remained until October, at which time they were transferred secretly to Uruguay and afterwards to Chile in December 1976 and were abandoned in a public square in the city of Valparaíso on December 22. The Commission considers that, as in the Case of Gelman previously cited in the present report, in this case the purpose or effect of the abduction of the siblings was “to let the incident be unknown for the lack of information about their fate or whereabouts or the refusal to acknowledge it.” The Court has made similar rulings in a series of cases in El Salvador, characterizing similar situations as forced disappearance.128 119. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the situation of Anatole and Victoria Larrabeiti Yáñez must also be characterized as forced disappearance, which came to an end when they recovered their identities and their biological kinship was reestablished on August 2, 1979. The Commission notes that, regardless of whether or not the fate and whereabouts of the siblings were ascertained a posteriori and that, for a significant part of their forced disappearance, they were outside Argentina’s territory, their forced disappearance had its initial start and was carried out in Argentina, and its perpetration and continuity was possible because of the actions of agents of the state of Argentina, as a result of which it can be held liable for what happened, even outside its jurisdiction but as a consequence of said actions. This is all the more evident, taking into account that, according to the consolidated approach of the bodies of the inter-American system in the matter, the forced disappearance, because of its complex and continuous character, must not be fragmented. 120. Regarding this, the IACHR notes that agents of the state of Argentina were involved in the design and implementation of the military operation that led to their illegal detention, as well as in their transfer and stay in a clandestine detention center. Likewise, Argentinian agents participated or at least permitted or covered up the clandestine transfer of the minors abroad, forcing them to leave their country of residence without any kind of border controls. As indicated, the multiple and complex nature of forced disappearance does not make it possible to split up this type of crime, especially considering that the goal of Argentina’s authorities when transferring the siblings abroad was to leave them in a kind of limbo or indeterminate legal situation and erase all traces of their existence, as well as the atrocities perpetrated against their family. As established by the above-mentioned case law, in this type of case, forced disappearance only ceases when the victim is guaranteed the legal and factual possibility of recovering his or her true identity. Therefore, in the instant case, that ceased when the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings recovered their identity on August 2, 1979. 121. Finally, the IACHR wishes to highlight the emblematic nature of the instant case, as well as its extreme gravity, because it deals with one of the most unimaginable and reproachable forms of violence against a child. The Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings were the first disappeared children who were recovered, and this occurred at a time when the dictatorships of the Southern Cone were still in force. Because of this case, the magnitude and horror of the systematic repression of human rights and the repressive coordination of the Southern Cone dictatorships were revealed for the first time, a system that did not show the least respect for most basic human rights of those persons who, like the siblings Anatole y Victoria, were in a situation of total defenselessness. As established in the above-mentioned inter-American case law, the aggravated situation of vulnerability is all the more intense when it encounters a systematic pattern of human rights violations and involves children, because their unlawful abduction from their biological parents jeopardizes their life, survival, and development. I/A Court H.R. Case of I.V. v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 329, para. 240. 128 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, paras. 80-94; and Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, paras. 92-97. 127