40 105. The Court has verified the consolidation, at the international level, of the analysis of this crime, which constitutes a serious human rights violation given the particular relevance of the violations it encompasses and the nature of the injured right.131 The practice of enforced disappearance implies a gross abandonment of the essential principles upon which the Inter-American System of Human Rights is founded132 and its prohibition is of jus cogens nature.133 106. The State’s obligation to prevent encompasses all the measures of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that promote the safeguard of human rights.134 As such, the deprivation of liberty in legally recognized facilities and the existence of a record of the detainees constitute fundamental safeguards, inter alia, against enforced disappearance. In contrario sensu, the commissioning and maintenance of clandestine detention centers constitutes per se an infringement to the obligation to guarantee, because it directly threatens the right to personal liberty, personal integrity, life135, and juridical personality. 136 107. Now, given that one of the objectives of enforced disappearance is to prevent the exercise of legal remedies and the relevant procedural guarantees, when a person is kidnapped, detained, or experiences any other form of deprivation of liberty in order to carry out the enforced disappearance of the person, if the victim cannot access the available remedies, its fundamental that the next of kin or other close persons have access to quick and effective procedures or judicial remedies so as to allow for the determination of the whereabouts or medical condition of said person or to identify the authority that ordered the deprivation of liberty or made it effective.137 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. 130 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 Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 85, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 60. 131 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 130, para. 84; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 86, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 61. 132 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 25, para. 158; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 86, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 61. 133 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 130, para. 84; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 86, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 61. 134 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 25, para. 175; Case of González et al. (“the Cotton Field”) v. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 252, para. 252, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 63. 135 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 122, para. 63, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 63. 136 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 63. 137 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Perú, supra note 122, para. 64; Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 24, para. 141, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 64.