42 by the Convention. 142 Consequently, the examination of a possible forced disappearance should not be approached in an isolated, divided and fragmented manner, considering merely the detention, or the possible torture, or the risk of loss of life. 143 Rather, the analysis should encompass all the facts submitted to the consideration of the Court. Only in this way is the legal analysis of forced disappearance consistent with the complex human rights violation that it entails. 144 135. These considerations do not contravene the principles of legality and non-retroactivity, since, unlike extrajudicial executions, the forced disappearance of persons is characterized as a continuous or permanent violation. This allows the Court to rule on an alleged forced disappearance, even if it commenced prior to the date on which the State accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, provided that said violation is maintained or continues after that date. 145 Nevertheless, the Court recalls that although it must analyze the alleged forced disappearance from an integral perspective, it can declare a violation of the American Convention or other treaties as of the date on which the respondent State accepted its jurisdiction, 146 namely, on March 9, 1987. 136. Finally, regarding the arguments concerning the manner in which the acts of forced disappearance should be prosecuted at the domestic level, the Court notes that in its case law it has considered cases in which the initial failure to define the autonomous crime of forced disappearance of persons at the time the facts occurred and when the criminal proceedings began at the domestic level did not hinder their progress; it has been of fundamental importance that the eventual application of criminal definitions be consistent with the serious nature of the facts and the complexity of the alleged human rights violations. Thus, in the Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, the trial judge in the criminal case issued a judgment on January 8, 2008, in which he convicted two former members of the army for the crimes of murder, deprivation of liberty, threats and abduction, as well as two former State agents for the crime of complicity in murder. The Court considered that “it [was] not proven that the lack of a legal definition of the autonomous crime of forced disappearance has hindered the effective development of the criminal proceedings.” 147 In the Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, the defendants in some cases were convicted of criminal offenses such as abduction, unlawful deprivation of liberty, abuse of authority, association or conspiracy to commit a crime, injuries, coercion or threats, and homicide, established in the Criminal Code of 1914 and 1998 when this was more beneficial to the accused. The Court recognized that “the illegal and arbitrary detention, torture and forced disappearance of the victims have not remained in total impunity through the application of other categories of crime.” 148 In the Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru, a different situation arose: although the accused were initially prosecuted for the crime of abduction, on March 16, 2006, four people were convicted of the crime of forced disappearance. The Supreme Court of Justice of Peru confirmed this position in a ruling on December 18, 2007, establishing that, “since it is a permanent crime, it will be understood to have been perpetrated under the new Criminal Code and its provisions shall be applied.” The Inter-American Court Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, para. 138, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 166. 143 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 112, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, para. 166. 144 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, para. 112, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, para. 116. 145 This has been the Court’s constant case law in cases of forced disappearance of persons. Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, para. 34; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 28 and sbsq; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, para. 24; Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 48; Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, para. 31. 146 Cf. Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic, para. 53. 147 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, paras. 75, 76, 103 and 104. 148 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 91 and 92. 142