24 set of facts presented in the case brought to the Court's attention.”77 In this way, the comprehensive processing of forced disappearance as a complex form of violation of human rights has led this Court to analyze the violation of several rights enshrined in the Convention as a whole.78 Thus, this analysis is in keeping with the continuing or permanent nature of this phenomenon and the need to consider the context in which the violations occurred, examine their effects over time and consider their consequences as a whole,79 taking into account the corpus juris of protection, at the Inter-American as well as the international level. B.1 Rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, life and juridical personality 68. The Court has already determined that Mr. Anzualdo Castro was deprived of liberty or abducted by state agents on his way home from university (supra paras. 34 and 50). In this regard, this Tribunal has considered that this type of deprivation of liberty of the individual must only be understood as the constitution of a complex violation that continues in time until the fate or whereabouts of the alleged victim is known,80 therefore, it is not necessary to determine whether or not the alleged victim was informed of the reasons for his detention, whether or not said detention was effected regardless of the motives and conditions established in the Peruvian legislation in force at the time of the events or whether the acts of the detention were unreasonable, unpredictable or disproportionate.81 69. According to the proven facts, after Mr. Anzualdo was deprived of liberty, he was taken to the basements of SIE, a clandestine detention center (supra para. 50), which is contrary to the obligation of State Parties to held every person deprived of liberty in an officially recognized place of detention and be brought before a competent judicial authority without delay, as an effective measure to prevent those facts.82 77 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 58, para. 112 and Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia, supra note 63, para. 56. 78 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988, series C N°4; case of Godinez Cruz V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989, series C N° 5; case of Caballero Delgado and Santana V. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 8, 1995, series C N° 22; Case of Benavidez Cevallos V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C N° 38; Case of Del Caracazo V. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C N° 58; case of Trujillo Oroza V. Bolivia. Merits. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C N° 64. Case of Molina Theissen V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of May 4, 2004. Series C N° 106. Case of the 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C Nº 109; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C Nº 134; Case of Blanco Romero et al. V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C Nº 138. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C Nº 140. Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C N° 153. Case of La Cantuta V. Peru. supra note 58; case of Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C Nº 190; Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191. 79 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay, supra note 59, para. 85. 80 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 58, para. 112 and Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia, supra note 63, para. 56. 81 Cf. in similar sense, Case of La Cantuta V. Perú, supra note 58, para. 109. 82 Cf. Article XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons.