32 A. The forced disappearance of children as a multiple and continuing violation of human rights and of the obligation to respect and guarantee rights (Articles 7, 5, 4(1) and 3 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention) A.1. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 90. Both the Commission and the representatives held that the facts of the instant case should be classified as forced disappearance and, therefore, that the State of El Salvador be declared responsible for the violation of the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, life and recognition of juridical personality, enshrined in Articles 7, 5, 4 and 3 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala. 91. The State acknowledged its responsibility for the violations of Articles 7, 5, 4 and 3 of the American Convention, referring to the facts established in the Commission’s merits report (supra para. 20). A.2. Considerations of the Court 92. In international law, this Court’s case law has been a precursor to the consolidation of a comprehensive perspective on the gravity and the continuous or permanent and autonomous nature of the legal definition of forced disappearance of persons, in which the act of disappearance and its execution begin with the deprivation of liberty of the person and the subsequent lack of information about that person’s fate and continues until the whereabouts of the disappeared person are known and his or her identity is established.169 To summarize, the practice of forced disappearance implies a blatant rejection of the essential principles that underlie the inter-American human rights system170 and its prohibition, together with the correlative duty to investigate and, if applicable, punish those responsible, has achieved the status of ius cogens.171 93. By virtue of the facts established and the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, it has been demonstrated that state agents, specifically members of the Salvadoran Armed Forces, abducted José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, on December 12, 1980, October 25, 1981, December 12, 1981, and August 22, 1982, respectively, in the course of different counterinsurgency operations during the armed conflict in El Salvador. Given that the whereabouts or subsequent fate of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala are still unknown to this day, the Court considers that these persons still remain subject to forced disappearance. 94. In its consistent case law the Court has reiterated that forced disappearance is a multiple and continuing violation of several rights protected by the American Convention, and that it places the Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 59, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 195. 169 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 158, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 112. 170 171 112. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 84, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, supra, para.