particular social context, their existence was not recognized legally; in other words they did not have juridical personality.367 8. The Court has also declared, with full justification, the violation of Article 3 in cases of forced disappearance. In the case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, which was the first case in which it adopted this position, the Court explained the content and basis of Article 3 and explained the reasons for its application to such cases: 87. As to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention (supra paras. 56 and 57), the Court has noted that the content itself of the right to juridical personality is that every person has the right to be recognized everywhere as a person having rights and obligations, and to enjoy the basic civil rights [which] implies the capacity to be the holder of rights (capacity and exercise) and obligations; the violation of this recognition presumes an absolute disavowal of the possibility of being a holder of [the] rights and obligations [the civil and basic]. 88. This right represents a parameter to determine whether a person is entitled to any given rights and whether that person can enforce such rights, therefore, the failure to recognize juridical personality places the person in a vulnerable position in relation to the State or third parties. Thus, the content of the right to juridical personality refers to the corresponding general obligation of the State to provide the means and general legal conditions necessary to guarantee each person the free and full enjoyment of the right to the recognition of his or her juridical personality. 89. However, pursuant to the principle of effectiveness and the need for protection in cases of people and groups in a vulnerable situation, this Court has observed the broader legal content of this right, by considering that the State “is bound to guarantee to those persons in situations of vulnerability, exclusion and discrimination, the legal and administrative conditions that may secure for them the exercise of such right, pursuant to the principle of equality under the law.” […] 90. Certainly, case law has developed the legal content of [the right to recognition of physical personality of every human being] in cases involving human rights violations other than forced disappearance of persons, because, in most cases of this type, the Court has found that it was not necessary to analyze the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, since there were no facts that warranted this. Nevertheless, in view of the multiple and complex nature of this serious human rights violation, the Court reconsiders its previous position and deems it possible that, in this type of case, forced disappearance may entail a specific violation of the said right: in addition to the fact that the disappeared person can no longer exercise and enjoy other rights, and eventually all the rights to which he is entitled, his disappearance seeks not only one of the most serious forms of placing the person outside the protection of the law, but also denies that person's existence and leaves him in a kind of limbo or uncertain legal situation before society, the State, and even the international community. 367 Case of the Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, paras. 178 to 180, and Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, paras. 265 to 268. 3