114. Also, according to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the States parties undertake not to practice, permit, or tolerate the enforced disappearance of persons, under any circumstances, and to punish those who commit this offense within their jurisdiction. This is consequent with the State’s obligation to respect and ensure rights contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, which entails the obligation of the States Parties to organize all the structures through which the powers of the State are exercised so that they are able to ensure, legally, the free and full exercise of human rights. 214 As part of this obligation, the State has the legal obligation “[t]o prevent, within reason, human rights violations, and to investigate effectively any violations committed within its jurisdiction with the means available, in order to identify those responsible, impose the pertinent sanctions on them, and ensure adequate reparation to the victim.” 215 115. It can be concluded from all the above that acts that constitute enforced disappearance have a continuing or permanent character and that their consequences result in multiple violations of the human rights recognized in the American Convention while the whereabouts of the victim are unknown or his remains have not been found. Consequently, States have the corresponding obligation to investigate enforced disappearances and, eventually, to punish those responsible pursuant to the obligations derived from the American Convention and, in particular, from the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 116. In this regard, the analysis of enforced disappearance must encompass the whole series of acts that have been presented to the Court’s consideration in this case. 216 Only thus is the legal analysis of the enforced disappearance consequent with the complex violation of human rights that it involves, 217 with its continuing or permanent character, and with the need to consider the context in which the facts occurred, in order to analyze their effects prolonged over time and to consider their consequences integrally, 218 taking into account both the inter-American and the international corpus juris on protection. 117. The Court will now examine whether what happened to Mr. Osorio Rivera constitutes an enforced disappearance. To this end, it will assess the different probative elements in the case file in light of the aspects that are in dispute between the parties and the Commission in order to determine whether they comprise the elements that constitute enforced disappearance (supra para. 113). In this regard, the Court must assess the evidence taking into account the serious nature of the attribution of international responsibility to a State and that, despite this, is able to establish the certainty of the truth of the alleged facts. 219 Páez, Constitutional Court of Peru, Judgment of March 18, 2004 (declaring, based on the decisions of the Inter-American Court in this case, that enforced disappearance is a permanent offense until the whereabouts of the victim has been determined, and involves multiple offenses). 214 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 166, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 329. 215 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 174, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, para. 156. 216 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 112, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 78. 217 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 112, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, para. 78. 218 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 85, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, para. 78. 219 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 129, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 132. 43