26 143. Neither is it sustainable that having a criminal record or charges pending is sufficient in and of itself to find that a witness is not competent to testify in Court. As the Court ruled, in its decision of October 6, 1987, in the instant case, under the American Convention on Human Rights, it is impermissible to deny a witness, a priori, the possibility of testifying to facts relevant to a matter before the Court, even if he has an interest in that proceeding, because he has been prosecuted or even convicted under internal laws. 144. By communication of March 2, 1988, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Guatemala corrected a previous answer regarding the immigration records of Francisco Fairén Garbi and Yolanda Solís Corrales. Although it is true that the communication does not come from the Ministry of Foreign Relations, there is no reason not to consider it official. It so happens, however, that the information submitted is contradictory. While it categorically affirms that neither of the Costa Ricans entered Guatemala, it offers no explanation for the two previous certificates which state the contrary; it also recognizes that the names Francisco Fairén Garbi and Yolanda Solís Corrales appear in the list of departures toward El Salvador, and does not explain how such an aberrant event could occur if those persons never entered Guatemala. Although it makes garbled statements about the signatures on those lists, it does not question their authenticity (supra 39). 145. Many of the press clippings offered by the Commission cannot be considered as documentary evidence as such. However, many of them contain public and well-known facts which, as such, do not require proof; others are of evidentiary value, as has been recognized in international jurisprudence (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, supra 130, paras. 62-64), insofar as they textually reproduce public statements, especially those of high-ranking members of the Armed Forces, of the Government, or even of the Supreme Court of Honduras, such as some of those made by the President of the latter. Finally, others are important as a whole insofar as they corroborate testimony regarding the responsibility of the Honduran military and police for disappearances. X 146. In the Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz judgments (supra 112, paras. 149-158 and 157-167, respectively), the Court defined the legal nature of disappearances and the elements which characterize that phenomenon; it analyzed how international law at the universal and the regional level, has faced the question; and it identified the norms of the Convention violated by the practice of forced or involuntary disappearances. Without repeating those developments in toto, the Court will summarize its opinion in that regard. 147. The phenomenon of involuntary disappearances is a complex form of violation of human rights that must be understood and faced as an integral problem. It is a multiple and continuing violation of many rights recognized by the Convention, which the States Parties are obligated to respect and guarantee. 148. The forced disappearance of a person is a case of arbitrary deprivation of liberty which also violates the right of every person to be taken without delay before a judge and to bring the appropriate remedies to ascertain the legality of the measures taken. In this sense, it is a violation of Article 7 of the Convention.