stressed that the forced disappearance “in this case formed part of the systematic pattern of forced disappearances in Guatemala and therefore constituted a crime against humanity.” 91. The representatives argued that Edgar Fernando García was “violently detained and injured” by State agents. They emphasized that the “practice of torture that existed in the country at that time allows it to be presumed that the presumed victim was also tortured” and that “it may be presumed that he was deprived of his life arbitrarily and illegally.” They also indicated that “ever since his capture and subsequent disappearance, Edgar Fernando García was unable to exercise his rights and if he was executed extrajudicially, to receive burial according to his religion and customs,” which constituted a violation of Article 3 of the American Convention. They underscored that there was a “lack of information and a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty and to provide information on the victim’s whereabouts,” as well as an impediment to the “exercise of the legal remedies that were filed, such as […] the applications for habeas corpus that […] were declared inadmissible.” 92. Meanwhile, the State “acknowledge[d] the facts denounced” in relation to Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention in relation to the obligation to respect rights included in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García. It also acknowledged the violation of Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, to the detriment of the victim, because “it had failed to comply with the obligation not to practice, permit or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons.” Regarding the violation of Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, the State indicated that this refers to “a definition of forced disappearance and not to an obligation in itself.” B) Considerations of the Court 93. In this case there is no dispute between the parties in relation to the State’s international responsibility for the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García, whose whereabouts remain unknown to this day. Furthermore, the mere fact that the disappearance of Edgar Fernando García is recorded in the section entitled “elements who have been dealt with” of the Diario Militar, the authenticity of which has been acknowledged by the State, reveals the State’s involvement in these disappearances. Similarly, the Court recalls that the CEH concluded that the events in this case constituted a forced disappearance (supra para. 68). Moreover, the Court underlines that, in the criminal proceedings conducted at the domestic level, two of the perpetrators of Edgar Fernando García’s forced disappearance were convicted of this crime, and it was concluded, inter alia: (b) that it is evident that this forced disappearance was ordered by State institutions, which was proved in the documentary evidence already analyzed; (c) that it was carried out with the authorization or support of State authorities, because the Army and the National Police intervened in it; (d) that Edgar Fernando García was violently deprived of his liberty; an action carried out by the defendants based on political motives, because the victim was a student and union leader, and belonged to Patriotic Youth for Labor and the Guatemalan Labor Party, organizations that were banned by the State, [and] (e) that the State has refused to reveal the fate of the victim and to acknowledge his detention, because to date his whereabouts are unknown. 121 94. Consequently, in this chapter, the Court will examine, in light of the acknowledgment of international responsibility, the alleged violations of the rights to recognition of juridical 121 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Eighth Crime, Drug-trafficking and Environmental Offenses Court, C-010691997-00001, on October 28, 2010 (file of annexes to the State’s answering brief, single tome, annex I, folio 3977 and 3978). 33