20 57. The representatives, moreover, agreed with this argument of the Commission. They alleged that this “limbo” regarding the legal condition of the individual occurs by means of the forced disappearance as a result of the uncertainty about the life or death of the victim and that these effects are produced on third parties, for example, in inheritance issues, property and labor rights. They recalled that in Peru there is a law that governs the possibility of requesting the declaration of absence by forced disappearance, in order to “provide the next-of-kin of the disappeared person […] the necessary instruments to have access to the recognition of their rights",56 by means of the legal declaration of disappearance, which has the same effects that the legal declaration of presumption of death. This domestic procedure confirms such “legal limbo.” 58. Finally, the Commission and the representatives alleged that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to humane treatment of the next-of-kin of Mr. Anzualdo Castro, as a direct consequence of the illegal and arbitrary deprivation of liberty of the victim and the disregard for and uncertainty about his whereabouts, coupled with the lack of results of the steps taken by the next-of-kin, the lack of a diligent investigation, prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators and instigators of the disappearance. The representatives alleged that the next-of-kin must be considered victims of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment. The State did not present arguments in this regard, though in the final arguments, in order to debate the requests for reparations, it indicated that “there is no causal link” between the disappearance and the onset of the cancer illness of Mrs. Isabel Castro Cachay de Anzualdo.” * * * 59. The Court has verified the strengthening of a perception of the international community and, in particular, the Inter-American system, that recognizes the gravity and the continuing or permanent and autonomous nature of the crime of forced disappearance of persons. In its constant case-law on this type of cases, the Court has reiterated that the forced disappearance of persons constitutes a multiple violation of several rights protected by the American Convention and that it places the victim in a state of complete defenselessness, giving rise to other related violations, particularly serious when framed within a systematic pattern or practice applied or consented by the State. Therefore, it constitutes a serious human rights violation, given the particular gravity of the offenses and the nature of the rights infringed,57 which involves a flagrant disavowal of the essential principles on which the inter-American system is based58 and the prohibition thereof has attained the status of jus cogens.59 56 Section 2 of Act 28.413 of November 24, 2004. 57 CONSIDERING that the forced disappearance of persons violates numerous non-derogable and essential human rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights, in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, Preamble. 58 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 100-106; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 118 and Case of La Cantuta V. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 115. 59 Cf. Case of Goiburú el al V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 84; Case of Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs.