Disappearance of Persons, which prohibits such behaviors.101 82. The Court warns that, according to its case law, given the multiple and complex nature of this grave violation of human rights, a forced disappearance may include a specific violation of Article 3 of the Convention102 because the consequence of the refusal to recognize the deprivation of liberty or whereabouts of the person, together with the other elements of the disappearance, amounted to "deprivation of the protection of law" or a violation of personal and legal certainty, directly obstructing the right to juridical personality.103 Despite the fact that the disappeared person can no longer exercise and enjoy other rights, and eventually all the rights to which he or she is entitled, his or her disappearance is not only one of the most serious forms of placing the person outside the protection of the law but it also entails to deny that person's existence and to place him or her in a kind of limbo or uncertain legal situation before the society and the State.104 83. Furthermore, the Court has affirmed that forced disappearance 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."105 This fact is determined when it includes 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. 84. Looking into the evidence provided of these elements, the Court has emphasized that, since forced disappearance is characterized by an attempt to suppress all information about the kidnapping, whereabouts and fate of the victims. This characteristic may result in the difficulty or impossibility of obtaining direct evidence concerning the act of forced disappearance.106 However, "[t]his […] does not, of itself, prevent the Court from determining, if applicable, the responsibility of the State."107 In such context, the fact that domestic investigations have not controverted the evidence of the State's participation in the events is a pertinent element that gives weight to the evidence.108 85. On this matter, it should be borne in mind that the Court, in order to establish a State's responsibility, does not need to establish the material attribution of an act to the State beyond any reasonable doubt, but rather be convinced that conduct attributable to the State that entails the breach of an international obligation and impacts human rights has been verified.109 To this Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 154, and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 87. 102 “Article 3. Right to Juridical Personality. Every person has the right to recognition as a person before the law." 103 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 90 to 92, and Case of the Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2021. Series C No. 437, para. 138. 104 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 90 and 91, and Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 332, para. 137. 105 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, paras. 155 to 157 and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 119. In the same sense, Article III of the IACFDP indicates that the "crime" of forced disappearance of individuals "shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined." Cf. Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 106 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 131 and Case of Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 27, 2022. Series C No. 455, para. 366. 107 Cf. Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 121. 108 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 96, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, note 146. 109 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, paras. 128 to 135 and 173, andCase of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 122. 101 -25-