60 captured. This practice, which also sought to prevent any possibility of proving it, was applied to Efraín Bámaca Velásquez. 125. In its final oral arguments in the public hearing on merits held in Washington D.C., United States (supra 48), the State admitted that it effectively knew that, within the ranks of the Army, there was a systematic practice, when a member of the URNG was detained or gave himself up, of transferring him to the National Army, if this was useful or offered sufficient benefits to make it attractive. However, during the same hearing, the State added that if Mr. Bámaca [Velásquez] was effectively a prisoner of war, he was an exception and it was not common practice. * * * 126. In its Article II, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons defines forced 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. 127. Article 201 TER of the Guatemalan Criminal Code - reformed by Decree No. 33-96 of the Congress of the Republic, adopted on May 22, 1996 - establishes: [t]he person who, with the authorization or support of State authorities, shall, for political motives, in any way, deprive one or more persons of their liberty, concealing their whereabouts, refusing to reveal their fate or acknowledge their detention, and also the public official or employee, whether or not he is a member of a State security agency, who orders, authorizes, supports or acquiesces to such actions, shall commit the crime of forced disappearance80. 128. Involuntary or forced disappearance constitutes a multiple and continuing violation of a number of rights protected by the Convention81, because not only does it produce an arbitrary deprivation of liberty, but it also endangers personal integrity, safety and the very life of the detainee. Moreover, it places the victim in a state of complete defenselessness, resulting in other related crimes. 129. This phenomenon also presumes “a disregard of the duty to organize the apparatus of the State in such a manner as to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention”82. Therefore, when it implements or tolerates actions tending to execute forced or involuntary disappearances, when it does not investigate them adequately and does not punish those responsible, when applicable, the State 80 Cf. Blake Case, supra note 52, para. 64. 81 Cf. Blake Case, supra note 52, para. 65; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, paras. 163 and 166; Caso Fairén Garbi, supra note 53, para. 147; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, paras. 155 and 158. 82 Ibid.