was under detention, necessarily caused feelings of anguish and vulnerability and constituted an act of torture. 89. Therefore, the Court finds that what happened to Mr. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura at “Km. 8” at the hands of police officers was a violation of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 90. Now, the Court finds that the alleged failure to comply with Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture due to a lack of investigation of this act of torture must be analyzed in the chapter on the investigations into the facts of this case (infra paras. 109). B.3. Detention and subsequent disappearance of Mr. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura as of October 3, 2003. 91. The Court finds it appropriate to reiterate its reiterated jurisprudence in the sense that in analyzing an alleged enforced disappearance, its permanent nature and the fact that it constitutes a plurality of violations must be taken into account. 68 92. The Court notes that the international community's attention to this phenomenon is not recent. The United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has, since the start of the 80s, developed a working definition of the phenomenon, highlighting with it illegal detentions by agents, governmental departments, or groups organized by individuals acting in the name of the State or with its support, authorization, or consent.69 93. For their part, Articles II and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, to which Argentina is Party (supra para. 30), define enforced disappearance as: the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees. 68 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 112; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 54, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 81. 69 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. V. Guatemala, supra note 69, para. 82; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 15, para. 58, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 102. See also, the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, Human Rights Commission, 37º period of sessions, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1435, of January 22, 1981, para. 4, and Report of Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, Human Rights Commission, 39º period of sessions, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1983/14, of January 21, 1983, paras. 130 to 132. Moreover, the definition in the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of 1992, establishes that enforced disappearances occur when: persons are arrested, detained or abducted against their will or otherwise deprived of their liberty by officials of different branches or levels of Government, or by organized groups or private individuals acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, followed by a refusal to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of their liberty, which places such persons outside the protection of the law. This Declaration was passed by the General Assembly in Resolution 47/133 dated December 18, 1992, A/RES/47/133. 28