not possible to prove the violations in the specific case. 160 These circumstances entail a violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention 107. Regarding Article 4 of the American Convention, the Court has considered that, owing to the very nature of forced disappearance, the victims are in an increased situation of vulnerability, which gives rise to the risk of the violation of several rights, including the right to life. In addition, the Court has established that forced disappearance has frequently included the execution of those detained, in secret and without any type of trial, followed by the concealment of the corpse in order to erase any material trace of the crime and to ensure the impunity of those who committed it, which signifies a violation of the right to life, recognized in Article 4 of the Convention. 161 Thus, the Court has verified that the execution of those who were disappeared was the practice during the internal armed conflict in Guatemala. 162 108. In addition, the Court has found that, in cases of forced disappearance, based on the complexity and multiple nature of this gross violation of human rights, its implementation involves the specific violation of the right to juridical personality, because the result of the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or the whereabouts of the person is, in conjunction with the other elements of the disappearance, the “removal of the protection of the law” or the violation of the individual’s personal and legal security, which directly prevents recognition of juridical personality. 163 109. In this regard, the Court has considered that the intrinsic content of the right to recognition of juridical personality is, precisely, that the individual is recognized, anywhere, as a subject of rights and obligations, with the right to enjoy the fundamental civil rights, and this implies the capacity to be the possessor of rights (capacity and enjoyment) and obligations. The violation of that recognition entails categorically denying the possibility of being the possessor of the fundamental civil rights and obligations. 164 Over and above the fact that the disappeared person is unable to continue enjoying and exercising other, and eventually, all the rights which he or she possesses, disappearance seeks not only one of the most serious forms of removing a person from every sphere of the legal system, but also denies their very existence and leaves them in a sort of limbo or situation of legal uncertainty before society and the State. 165 110. The Court considers that Edgar Fernando García has been placed in a situation of legal uncertainty that has prevented him from possessing or exercising his rights effectively, and this entails a violation of his right to recognition of juridical personality. Regarding the representatives’ argument concerning Mr. García’s right “to be buried in accordance with his religion or customs,” the Court underlines that the fact that a disappeared person cannot exercise all the rights that he or she possesses, does not mean that the forced 160 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 175, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 117. 161 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 157, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 185. 162 Cf. CEH, supra, volume II, pp. 241, 415, 421 and 423, paras. 2068, 2082, 2083 and 2087, and Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of May 4, 2004. Series C No. 106, para. 40.4. 163 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, paras. 90 to 101, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 118. 164 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 179, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 119. 165 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 90, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 119. 39