of the different instances of the United Nations, 77 and the rulings of various Constitutional courts and other high tribunals of the American States78 coincide with the abovementioned definition. 79 96. The Court has verified international consensus in the analysis of this crime, which constitutes a grave violation of human rights given the particular relevance of the infractions comprising it and the nature of the rights damaged, implying a clear abandonment of the essential principles on which the Inter-American Human Rights System is based80 and whose prohibition has attained the character of jus cogens. 81 97. The analysis of enforced disappearance must address all of the facts brought for the consideration of the Court in this case. 82 Only in this manner is the legal analysis of enforced disappearance consistent with the complex violation of human rights entailed, 83 with its permanent or continuous character, and with the need to consider the pattern of police abuse within which the facts took place, in order to analyze their prolonged effects over time and focus fully on their consequences. 84 98. Now, in keeping with Article I, subparagraphs a) and b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, States Parties commit to not practicing and not tolerating the enforced disappearance of persons under any circumstance, and to punishing those responsible under their jurisdiction. This is consistent with the State's obligation to respect and guarantee the rights contained in Article 1(1) of the American 77 About the competence of the Human Rights Comitte of the United Nation to verify continuing violations, see, the case of Ivan Somers v. Hungría, Communication No. 566/1993, 57 period of sessions, CCPR/C/57/D/566/1993 (1996), July 23, 1996, para. 6(3), and the case of E. and A.K. v. Hungría, Communication No. 520/1992, 50 period of sessions, CCPR/C/50/D/520/1992 (1994), May 5, 1994, para. 6(4). 78 Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Judgment of August 10, 2007, (declaring the pluri-ofensive and permanent nature of the crime of enforced disappearance); Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico, Thesis: P./J. 87/2004, “Enforced disappearance of persons. The period of the statute of limitation initiates [when] the victim appears or fate is known” (affirming that the enforced disappearances are permanent crimes and that the statute of limitation should be calculated as of the date of the perpetration of the act has ceased); Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Chile, Case of Caravana, Judgment of July 20, 1999; Plenary of the Supreme Court of Chile, Case of removal of immunity of Pinochet (Caso de desafuero de Pinochet), Judgment of August 8, 2000; Court of Appeals of Santiago de Chile, Case of Sandoval, Judgment of January 4, 2004 (all declaring that the crime of enforced disappearance is continous, against humanity, non expiring and not subject to amnesty); Federal Chambers of Appeals of Criminal and Correctional Matters of Argentia, Case of Videla et al., Judgment of September 9, 1999 (declaring that the enforced disappearances are continous crimes against humanity); Constitutional Court of Bolivia, Case of José Carlos Trujillo, Judgment of November 12, 2001; Constitutional Court of Peru, Case of Castillo Páez, Judgment of March 18, 2004 (declaring, for purposes of that ordered by the Inter-American Court in the same case, that enforced disappearances is a permanent crime until the wherabouts of the victim are known), and the Supreme Court of Justice of Uruguay, Case of Juan Carlos Blanco and Case of Gavasso et al., Judgments of October 18 and 17, 2002, respectively 79 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 83; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 70, para. 104, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 65. 80 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 158; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 70, para. 105, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 75. 81 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay, supra note 80, para. 84; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 70, para. 105, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 75. 82 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 23, para. 146; Case of Chitay Nech et al. V. Guatemala, supra note 69, para. 87; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 68. 83 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 69, para. 150; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 70, para. 111, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 78. 84 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay, supra note 80, para. 85; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 70, para. 111, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 78. 30