30 Constitutional Courts and other high courts of the American States106 agree with the abovementioned characterization.107 83. Additionally, in international law, the Court’s case law has been in the vanguard of the consolidation of a comprehensive perspective of the seriousness and continuing or permanent nature of the forced disappearance of persons, in which the act of disappearance and its execution start with the deprivation of the liberty of the person and the subsequent lack of information about his fate, and remain while the whereabouts of the disappeared person are unknown and his identity has not been determined with certainty.108 In keeping with the foregoing, the Court has reiterated that forced disappearance constitutes a multiple violation of several rights protected by the American Convention that places the victim in a state of complete defenselessness, resulting in other related violations, with the situation being particularly serious when it forms part of a systematic pattern or practice that is applied or tolerated by the State.109 In brief, the practice of forced disappearance implies a crass abandonment of the essential principles on which the inter-American human rights system is based,110 and both its prohibition and the correlating duty to investigate and, eventually, punish those responsible have achieved the status of jus cogens.111 84. The Court reiterates that the forced disappearance of persons constitutes a multiple violation, which begins with the deprivation of liberty, whatever the form it takes, in 2000, paras. 102 to 105; Eur. Court HR, Case of Tas v. Turkey (Application no. 24396/94). Judgment of 14 November 2000, paras. 84 to 87, and Eur. Court HR, Case of Cyprus v. Turkey (Application no. 25781/94). Judgment of 10 May 2001, paras. 132 to 134 and 147 to 148. 105 Cf. Human Rights Committee. Ivan Somers v. Hungary, Communication No. 566/1993, Views of 23 July 1996, para. 6.3; E. and A.K. v. Hungary, Communication No. 520/1992, Views of 5 May 1994, para. 6.4, and Solórzano v. Venezuela, Communication No. 156/1983, Views of 26 March 1986, para. 5.6. 106 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Judgment of August 10, 2007 (declaring the permanent nature of the crime of forced disappearance involving multiple offenses); Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico, Thesis: P./J. 87/2004, “Forced disappearance of persons. The period granted before its prescribes begins [when] the victim appears or his or her fate is established” (affirming that forced disappearances are permanent crimes and that the prescription should begin to be calculated only when they cease); Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Chile, Case of Caravana, Judgment of July 20, 1999; Plenum of the Supreme Court of Chile, Case of the withdrawal of immunity from Pinochet, Judgment of August 8, 2000; Court of Appeal of Santiago de Chile, Case of Sandoval, Judgment of January 4, 2004 (all declaring that the crime of forced disappearance is continuing, a crime against humanity, cannot prescribe, and cannot be subject to amnesty); Federal Chamber of Criminal and Correctional Appeal of Argentina, Case of Videla et al., Judgment of September 9, 1999 (declaring that forced disappearances are continuing crimes and crimes against humanity); Constitutional Court of Bolivia, Case of José Carlos Trujillo, Judgment of November 12, 2001; Constitutional Court of Peru, Case of Castillo Páez, Judgment of March 18, 2004 (declaring, based on the decisions of the Inter-American Court in this case, that forced disappearance is a permanent crime until the whereabouts of the victim have been established), and Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay, Case of Juan Carlos Blanco and Case of Gavasso et al., judgments of October 18 and April 17, 2002, respectively. 107 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 83; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 98, para. 85, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 100, para. 60. 108 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 100, para. 59; Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 65, para. 73, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 97, para. 103. 109 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 59; Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 65, para. 74, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 97, para. 103. 110 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 23, para. 158; Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 75, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 97, para. 105. 111 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 107, para. 84; Case of Gelman, supra note 16, para. 183, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 97, para. 137.