f) “The national authorities and judges have found that the evidence contained in the file does not demonstrate the alleged participation of State agents in the disappearance.”138 115. Colombia also explained that, although various proceedings were instituted in the early stages of the investigation in order to find Mr. Movilla, and all proved unsuccessful, “in no case was there a refusal to reveal his whereabouts.” 116. Lastly, the State denied responsibility for the alleged violation of the rights to freedom of association and expression. It held that: a) there was no measure restricting Mr. Movilla’s exercise of those freedoms; b) “there is no evidence establishing that Pedro Movilla’s trade union and political activity was of a sufficiently high profile to make it possible to infer that it might have been a motive for the commission of a crime against him;” and c) there is no proof that State agents were involved in what occurred. B) Considerations of the Court 117. The Court notes that it is an undisputed fact that Pedro Movilla has been missing since May 13, 1993. The State has accepted that, due to a lack of diligence in domestic investigative actions, it failed to guarantee Mr. Movilla’s rights to recognition of his juridical personality, life, personal integrity and personal liberty (supra paras. 17, 33, 34 and 39). The violation of the obligation to guarantee those rights has been established based on the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility. The Court must decide whether it is possible to determine that Colombia has failed to comply with its obligation to respect those same rights, in other words, whether it is possible to attribute Mr. Movilla’s disappearance directly to the State. 118. This Court will now: a) present some general considerations regarding forced disappearance and the rules of evidence that must be borne in mind in relation to the human rights violation in question; b) assess the existing evidence in the case of the disappearance of Pedro Movilla and the alleged involvement of State agents; and c) set forth its conclusion. B.1 General considerations regarding evidence of forced disappearance 119. The Court holds that for the forced disappearance of persons to be a serious violation of human rights, it must include the following concurring elements: a) the deprivation of liberty; b) the direct intervention of State agents or their authorization, support or acquiescence; and, c) the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned.139 It is “a continuing or permanent act that extends until the whereabouts of the victims are known or until their remains have been found and clearly identified.”140 that State agents had taken part in the disappearance, but rather showed a “commitment” to exhausting all possible lines of investigation. 138 The State referred to the decisions of a) the Delegate Inspector for the Defense of Human Rights, of February 17, 1998; b) the Administrative Litigation Chamber of Cundinamarca, of October 30, 2001; and c) the Council of State, of June 23, 2011. 139 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 112. The constituent elements of forced disappearance as stated are in accordance with the provisions of Article II of the IACFDP. In relation to the acknowledgement of forced disappearance as a serious human rights violation, see also Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 84. 140 Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 112. Cf., also, in the same regard, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 155 to 157. Article III of the IACFDP indicates that the “offense” of forced disappearance of persons “shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined.” 32