64 the “Terror Files” show clearly that the most senior Paraguayan authorities were aware of the actions taken to abduct him. After he had been abducted in Entre Ríos, Argentina, Dr. Goiburú was deprived of his liberty in an Air Force base in that country; from there he was taken by aircraft to Formosa and handed over to the Paraguayan authorities in Puerto Falcón, from where he was delivered to the Investigations Department. The detentions of Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba were carried out by police from the Paraguayan Investigations Department and by Argentine police. Before they were disappeared, the victims were subjected to severe detention conditions, intense interrogation and brutal torture, which included the application of lashes with the so-called “teyuruguay” and the procedure known as “pileteada” [submersion in a tank of water]. 87. The illegal and arbitrary detention or abduction, torture and forced disappearance of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro and the brothers Rodolfo and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba was the result of a police intelligence operation, planned and executed undercover by members of the Paraguayan Police, with the knowledge of and ordered by the most senior authorities of General Stroessner’s Government and, at least in the prior phases of the planning of the detentions or abductions, in close collaboration with Argentine authorities. This is consistent with the modus operandi of the systematic practice of illegal detentions, torture and forced disappearances verified at the time of the facts within the framework of “Operation Condor” (supra paras. 61(3) to 61(14) and 62 to 72). 88. It has also been verified that, at the time, a situation of general impunity of the grave human rights violations reigned (supra paras. 61(2) to 61(4) and 73), which conditioned the protection of the rights in question. In this regard, the Court has understood that the general obligation to ensure the human rights embodied in the Convention, contained in Article 1(1) thereof, entails the obligation to investigate cases of violations of the substantive right that must be protected and safeguarded. Thus, in cases of extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances and other grave human rights violations, the Court has considered that the realization of a prompt, serious, impartial and effective investigation ex officio, is a fundamental element and a condition for the protection of certain rights that are affected or annulled by these situations, such as the right to personal liberty, humane treatment and life.68 89. It was only after 1989, when Stroessner’s dictatorial regime fell, that the investigations into the facts of this case started. Nevertheless, the conditions in a country, however difficult, do not release a State Party to the American Convention from its treaty-based obligations.69 Moreover, forced disappearance involves the disregard of the obligation to organize the State apparatus to safeguard the rights recognized in the Convention and reproduces the conditions of impunity so that this 68 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 60, paras. 63-66; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, paras. 127-131; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community . Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, paras. 150-154, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 5, paras. 143 to 146. 69 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 300; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 5, para. 238, and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 170.