48 156. This right represents a parameter to determine if a person is or not entitled to the rights in question, and if they can exercise them,145 reason for which the violation of that acknowledgment makes the individual vulnerable with regard to the State or individuals.146 Therefore, the content of the right to acknowledgment of juridical personality refers to the corollary general duty of the State to offer the means and juridical conditions so that right can be freely and fully exercised by their bearers,147 or in its case, the obligation to not violate that right. 157. In its judgment issued in the case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, this Tribunal considered that, in cases of forced disappearance, in response to the multiple and complex nature of this grave violation of human rights, its execution can include the specific infringement of the right to the acknowledgment of juridical personality. Beyond the fact that the disappeared person cannot continue to enjoy and exercise others, and eventually all the rights to which it is also entitled, their disappearance seeks not only one of the most grave forms of extraction of a person from all realms of the legal system, but also deny their existence and leave it in a state of limbo or an undetermined juridical situation in what refers to society and the State.148 In the case currently before us, this translates into a violation of the right to acknowledgment of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco’s juridical personality. * * * 158. In consideration of the aforementioned, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to personal liberty, to humane treatment, to the acknowledgment of juridical personality and to life of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, by virtue of the forced disappearance of which he is a victim, carried out by state soldiers. In that sense, the State has the duty to guarantee the rights through the prevention and diligent investigation of the forced disappearance. This forces the State to start serious and effective investigations tending to determine his fate or whereabouts, identify those responsible and, if it were the case, impose the corresponding punishments. The disregard for the fate of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco, his whereabouts or that of his remains is still present up to this date, without there being an effective investigation tending to find out where he is, which makes the non-compliance of this duty evident. The Court will analyze in Chapter IX of this Judgment what refers to the State’s duty to investigate. For the determination of the violations argued, it is enough to mention that in this case the State has not effectively guaranteed the rights included in the stipulations analyzed. 159. In conclusion, the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 7(1) (Personal 145 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Parauay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 188; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 144, para. 166, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 88. 146 Cf. Case of the Girls Yean and Bocico v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 179; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 144, para. 166, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 88. 147 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 145, para. 189; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, supra note 144, para. 167, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 88. 148 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 90.