45 144. For an investigation to be effective, the States must establish an adequate regulatory framework in order to develop the investigation, which implies regulating the forced disappearance of persons as an autonomous crime in their domestic legislations, since criminal prosecution is an adequate instrument for preventing future violations of human rights135 (infra paras. 317 through 318) 145. From all the aforementioned, it can be concluded that the acts that constitute a forced disappearance have a permanent nature and that their consequences imply multiple offenses to the rights of people acknowledged in the American Convention while the whereabouts of the victim are not known or their remains have not been located; therefore, the States have the corrollary duty to investigate it and, eventually, punish those responsible, pursuant with the obligations derived from the American Convention, and specifically, from the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 146. In that sense, the analysis of forced disappearance shall include the totality of the facts presented for the Tribunal’s consideration in the present case.”136 Only then will the legal analysis of the forced disappearance be in accordance with the complex violations of human rights it entails,137 with its continued or permanent nature, and with the need to consider the context in which the facts occurred, in order to analyze its prolonged effects in time and focus comprehensively on its consequences,138 taking into consideration the corpus juris of protection, both Inter-American and international. C.1 Rights to personal freedom, to humane treatment, life, and to the acknowledgment of juridical personality 147. The Commission argued, in separate sections, that the State was responsible for having illegally deprived Mr. Radilla-Pacheco of his freedom, and of not having taken him before a competent judge. Likewise, it stated that said detention had occurred “[w]ithin a context of arrests and tortures of detainees,” that there were serious indicia that Mr. Radilla-Pacheco had been submitted to tortures, and that the State had not carried out a serious and objective investigation of those facts. It added that since “[3]3 years” had gone by “since the date of his arrest, without any news on his whereabouts […] there [were] sufficient elements of conviction to consider that [Mr.] Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco lost his life in the hands of members of the Mexican army.” It also indicated that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee the right to life of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco through a serious, diligent, and impartial investigation, and that the ones it had started had “[s]hown delays and lack of effectiveness.” Finally, the Commission argued that the forced disappearance generated a violation of the acknowledgment of the alleged victim’s juridical personality, since the precise objective of forced disappearance is to extract the individual from the protection due to them, with the clear and deliberate intention of eliminating the 135 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra note 51, paras. 96 and 97; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, paras. 188 and 189, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 66. 136 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 112, and Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 23, para. 56, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 67. 137 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 24, para. 185; Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 23, para. 70, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 67. 138 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 83, para. 85, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 67.