30 112. In this regard, forced disappearance affects different juridical rights and it continues owing to the deliberate intention of the alleged perpetrators, who, by refusing to provide information on the victim’s whereabouts maintain the offense throughout time. Consequently, when examining an alleged forced disappearance it should be taken into account that the deprivation of liberty of the individual must be understood merely as the beginning of the constitution of a complex violation that is prolonged over time until the fate and whereabouts of the alleged victim are established. In keeping with the above, it is therefore necessary to consider the offense of forced disappearance in toto, as an autonomous offense of a continuing or permanent nature with its multiple elements intricately interrelated. Consequently, the examination of a possible forced disappearance should not be approached in an isolated, divided and fragmented manner, considering merely the detention, or the possible torture, or the risk of loss of life, but rather the focus should be on all the facts presented in the case being considered by the Court, bearing in mind the Court’s case law when interpreting the American Convention, and also the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons in the case of States that have ratified the latter. 113. When examining all the facts of this case together, and to put them in context, the Court observes that, as stated in the report of the Panama Truth Commission, members of the Panamanian National Guard surrounded Mr. Portugal in a cafe; they forced him to get into the vehicle they were using, and took him away to an unknown destination, without explaining the reasons for the detention (supra para. 88). The Court considers that this deprivation of liberty by State agents, without information being provided on his whereabouts, initiated his forced disappearance. This violation continued over time after 1990 until his remains were identified in 2000. Therefore, considering the Court’s lack of competence to rule on the death or possible torture or ill-treatment that it is alleged that Mr. Portugal suffered (supra para. 104), the Court considers that Mr. Portugal’s right to personal liberty, established in Article 7 of the Convention, was violated continuously until that date, owing to his forced disappearance. 114. Furthermore, although the Court does not have competence to declare a violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Portugal, from the facts contained in the case file, it is clear that Mr. Portugal was detained and transferred to an unknown place, where he was mistreated and subsequently executed. 115. Added to the foregoing, the Court has understood that the general obligation to ensure the human rights embodied in the Convention, contained in Article 1(1) thereof, gives rise to the obligation to investigate violations of the substantive rights that should be protected, ensured or guaranteed.73 Thus, in cases of extrajudicial executions, forced disappearance and other grave human rights violations, the Court has found that conducting a prompt, genuine, impartial and effective investigation ex officio is a fundamental and conditioning factor for the protection of certain rights that are affected or annulled by these situations, such as the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment and life. In this regard, in the chapter corresponding to the examination of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, the Court will examine the actions taken by the State in relation to investigating the facts of this case. 116. Lastly, the Court recalls that forced disappearance presumes disregard of the obligation to organize the State apparatus to guarantee the rights established in the 73 Cf. Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 142; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 17, para. 88, and Case of La Cantuta, supra note 16, para. 110.