91. Thus, the Court bears in mind that one of the characteristics of forced disappearance, contrary to extrajudicial execution, is that it entails the State’s refusal to acknowledge that the victim is in its custody and to provide information in this regard, in order to create uncertainty as to his whereabouts, life or death, to intimidate and to eliminate rights (supra paras. 60 and 80). […] 101. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that in cases of forced disappearance of persons, the victim is placed in a situation of legal uncertainty that prevents, impedes or eliminates the possibility of the individual being entitled to or effectively exercising his rights in general, in one of the most serious forms of non-compliance with the State’s obligations to respect and ensure human rights. This has resulted in the violation of the right to juridical personality of Mr. Anzualdo Castro. 368 9. Thus, the grounds for the recognition of the legal status [personería jurídica]369 of the indigenous or tribal peoples or communities should be sought in relation to other provisions of the Convention. These grounds are not very hard to find, because they are the legal consequence of the recognition of the right to property (in this case collective property) established in Article 21. No one can be the holder of a right without the corresponding existence of the consequent legal status [personería jurídica]. And the Court explained this in its judgment in the case of the Saramaka People, in which it set out the correct reasoning with absolute clarity: 171. The recognition of their juridical personality is a way, albeit not the only one, to ensure that the community, as a whole, will be able to enjoy and exercise fully their right to property, in accordance with their communal property system, and the right of equal access to judicial protection against violations of that right. 172. The Court considers that the right to have their juridical personality recognized by the State is one of the special measures that should be provided to indigenous and tribal groups in order to ensure that they are able to enjoy their territory in accordance with their own traditions. This is a natural consequence of the recognition of the right of members of indigenous and tribal groups to enjoy certain rights in a communal manner.370 10. The same reasoning must be applied in the instant case; thus, the reference to Article 3 and, in particular, the supposed violation of this article, is not only unjustified, but also unnecessary.371 368 Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, paras. 87 to 91 and 101. 369 I find it preferable to reserve the use of the expression “juridical personality” [personalidad jurídica] to situations covered by Article 3 of the Convention (the right of every human being to recognition as a person before the law) and, instead, speak of “legal status” [personería jurídica] for cases in which the condition of subject of rights and obligations is attributed to a group, community or people. 370 Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, paras. 171 and 172. 371 In the case of the Saramaka People, incongruously, the Court ended by declaring “the violation of the right of the members of the Saramaka People to recognition of their juridical personality pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention in relation to their right to property under Article 21 thereof, and the right to judicial protection under Article 5 of this same instrument, as well as with regard to the general obligation of the State to adopt the 4