45 elements to make a ruling regarding the eight abovementioned persons, and as such, establishes a period of twenty-four months, as of notification of this Judgment, for irrefutable evidence to be provided, pursuant to domestic legislation, regarding “Batista,” “Gabriel,” “Joaquinzão,” José de Oliveira, Josias Gonçalves de Souza, Juarez Rodrigues Coelho, Sabino Alves da Silva, and “Sandoval,” that would allow the State to identify them, and where necessary, consider them victims in the terms of Law No. 9.140/95 and of the present Judgment, adopting the appropriate remedial measures in their favor. This conclusion does not prevent nor preclude the possibility that, once the term expires, in domestic law, said people be considered victims in the future if the State, in good faith, says so and adopts the appropriate measures of reparation in their favor upon their identification. 121. As a conclusion, according to that indicated by the State and the previous considerations, the Court considers proved that between 1972 and 1974, in the region known as Araguaia, State agents were responsible for the enforced disappearance of 62 persons identified as victims in the present case. Thirty-eight years have passed since the beginning of the enforced disappearances, and only the bodily remains of two of them have been identified.159 The State continues without defining the whereabouts of the remaining 60 disappeared victims, meanwhile, to date, it has not given a determinant response regarding their location. In this regard, the Court reiterates that enforced disappearance has a permanent and continues while the whereabouts of the victim remain unknown or their bodily remains are found, in a way that allows for their identity to be ascertained with certainty.160 122. Likewise, the Court reiterates that the enforced disappearance of persons constitutes a multi-offensive violation that begins with a deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 7 of the American Convention.161 On the other hand, as the Court has established, the subjection of detainees to repressive official bodies, State agents, or private persons whom act under said acquiescence or tolerance, that with impunity carry out acts of torture and murder, represent itself an infringement to the obligation to prevent violations to the right to personal integrity and right to life, established in Articles 5 and 4 of the American Convention, even when the torture or deprivation of liberty of persons cannot be demonstrated in the specific case.162 Moreover, since its first contentious case,163 the Court has also affirmed that the practice of disappearance has entailed frequently the execution of the detainees, in secret and without a trial, followed by the hiding of the body so as to erase any material evidence of the crime and seek the impunity of those who committed it, which implies a brutal violation of the right to life, recognized in Article 4 of the Convention. This fact, together with 159 The two victims of enforced disappearance identified are: Messers. Lourival Moura Paulino and Bérgson Gurjão Farias, respectively, in 2008 and 2009. The third identified person, in the year 1996, was Mrs. Maria Lúcia Petit da Silva, supra notes 96, 148 and 154. In regard to the identification of Mr. Lourival Moura Paulino in 2008, the Court notes that only the representatives presented this information. Nevertheless, the Court considers him as identified victim for purposes of the present Judgment. 160 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 114, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 23, para. 34, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 82. 161 Cf. Case of Velázquez Rodriguez, Merits. supra note 25, para. 155. 162 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits. supra note 25, para. 175; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 95, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 95. 163 Cf. Case of Velázquez Rodriguez, Merits. supra note 25, para. 157.