32 78. In that regard, in this case, the analysis of enforced disappearance must encompass the totality of the facts presented for the Court’s consideration, 82 given that only in this manner, the legal analysis of enforced disappearance is consistent with the complex violation of human rights that it entails, 83 with its continuous or permanent nature, and with the necessity of considering the context in which the facts took place. in order to analyze its prolonged effects over time and focus, comprehensively, on the consequences at hand, 84 considering the corpus juris of Inter-American System and international protection. 85 D. The enforced Iruretagoyena de Gelman. D.1 disappearance of María Claudia García Facts 79. María Claudia García Iruretagoyena Casinelli was born on January 6, 1957, in Buenos Aires, Argentina. She worked at a shoe factory and was a student of Philosophy and Letters at the University of Buenos Aires. 86 80. She was married to Marcelo Ariel Gelman Schubaroff and at the moment she was deprived of her liberty, she was 19 years old and in an advanced state of pregnancy (around 7 months).87 83. She was detained at dawn on August 24, 1976, with her husband, Marcelo Ariel Gelman Schubaroff, and her sister-in-law, Nora Eva Gelman Schubaroff, who were Juan Gelman’s children, along with a friend named Luis Edgardo Peredo, at their home in Buenos Aires, by “Uruguayan and Argentine military commandos.” 88 Nora Eva Gelman and Luis Eduardo Pareda were released four days later. 89                                                          82 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 112; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 63, para. 87, Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 67. 83 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 82, para. 150; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 63, para. 87, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 68. 84 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 23, para. 85; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 63, para. 87, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 68. 85 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 74, para. 146, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 68. 86 Cf. Historical Investigation on Detainees and Disappeared Persons in compliance with Article 4 of Law 15.488 of 2007, Tome II, Personal case files of the Detained Disappeared Persons, Uruguay, supra note 23, Section 1, page 195 (Case file of annexes to the brief of motions and pleadings, annex 10, CD 1). 87 Cf. Historical Investigation on Detainees and Disappeared Persons in compliance with Article 4 of Law 15.488 of 2007, Tome II, Personal case files of the Detained Disappeared Persons, Uruguay, Section 1, page 196, supra note 23. 88 Cf. Historical Investigation on Detainees and Disappeared Persons in compliance with Article 4 of Law 15.488 of 2007, supra note 23, Tome I, pages. 116, Tome II, Personal case files of the Detained Disappeared Persons, Uruguay, Section 1, page 196, Tome III, page 714; Final Report of the Commission for Peace, supra note 56, annex 5.2, para. 1b, folio 2201. 89 Cf. Historical Investigation on Detainees and Disappeared Persons in compliance with Article 4 of Law 15.488 of 2007, Tome II, Personal case files of the Detained Disappeared Persons, Uruguay, supra note 23, Section 1, page 196; Preliminary Statement of Eduardo Rodolfo Cabanillas (case file of evidence, Tome 8, annexes to the answer to the petition, folio 4496).