50 158. In the instant case, the 22 victims of forced disappearance were illegally detained by State agents, and to date there is no information about the fate or whereabouts of 18 of them. In was not until 2008 that the location of four of the victims was established (supra para. 100). The initial detention was a prior step to their disappearance and clearly contravened their right to personal liberty, in violation of Article 7 of the American Convention. Their disappearance was part of a pattern of forced disappearance of persons, which suggests that the victims were placed in a situation of special vulnerability and serious risk of suffering irreparable harm to their personal integrity and their lives. The Court has established that it is evident that the victims of this practice find all aspects of their personal integrity violated, 172 and that subjecting a person to official, repressive bodies that practice torture and assassination with impunity is itself a breach of the duty to prevent violations of a person’s right to life and physical integrity, even if those acts of torture or deprivation of life cannot be proven in the specific case. 173 The Court has also stated that forced disappearance violates the right to humane treatment because the mere subjection of an individual to prolonged isolation and incommunicado detention constitutes cruel and inhuman treatment. 174 Furthermore, the Court has indicated that the fact that a person is missing for an extended period of time and in a context of violence is sufficient to conclude that the person was deprived of his or her life. 175 All this, is in contravention of Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention. 159. The Court also recalls that since the case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru of September 22, 2009, it has considered that the practice of forced disappearance may entail a specific violation of Article 3 of the American Convention, since it not only seeks one of the most serious forms of removal of a person from the legal system, but also seeks to deny his very existence and leave him in a sort of limbo or situation of legal uncertainty in the eyes of society, the State and even the international community. Similarly, “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 to be entitled to or effectively exercise his or her rights in general, in one of the most serious forms of non-compliance with the State’s duties to respect and guarantee human rights.” 176 The Court has reiterated this position in its subsequent rulings. 177 In the instant case, the Court considers that the 22 victims were placed in a situation of legal uncertainty that prevented them from having or effectively exercising their rights in general, which resulted in a violation of the right to recognition of their juridical personality. 160. For all the forgoing reasons, the Court concludes that Guatemala is internationally responsible for the forced disappearance of the 22 victims indicated (supra paras. 155 and 156), and that it is responsible for the violation of Articles 7, 5(1) and 5(2), 4(1) and 3 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and in relation to Article I.a) of the Inter-American Cf. Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, para. 166. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 175; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 85. 174 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 156 and 187; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, para. 85. 175 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 188, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, para. 160 176 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, paras. 90 and 101. In that case, the Court recognized that up to that time, in most cases of forced disappearance of persons, it had considered that it was not appropriate to analyze the violation of Article 3 of the Convention, since there were no facts that so warranted it, citing, among others, the case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. However, given the multiple and complex nature of this serious human rights violation, the Court reconsidered its previous position deemed it possible that, in cases of this nature, the forced disappearance could entail a specific violation of the aforementioned. 177 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, Case of Gomes Lund et al. v. Brazil, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic, Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. 172 173