or her whereabouts through efficient investigations and the impossibility of filing appeals on his or her behalf given the State's denial of the fact that the disappeared person is in its custody. 70. Forced disappearance comprises the following concurrent, basic elements: (1) deprivation of liberty; (2) direct involvement of governmental officials or acquiescence thereof; and (3) refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to disclose the fate and whereabouts of the person concerned.97 71. Next, the Commission will determine whether what happened to Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal constituted a forced disappearance, by the standards referred to above. The Commission notes that in the instant case the Bolivian State itself has acknowledged that Mr. Flores Bedregal was one of the victims of the armed assault on the CB on July 17, 1980. The same transpires from the principal judicial decisions handed down by Bolivian courts with respect to the facts relating to the coup d’état and, in particular, the aforementioned assault. Accordingly, no party is questioning the participation of State agents in the events surrounding the armed attack, when Mr. Flores Bedregal was last seen after being shot and in the custody of said agents. 72. Thus the Commission finds that the two first constituent elements of forced disappearance are given in this case. In the particular circumstances of the instant case, the Commission considers that the controversy surrounding the legal characterization of the facts as forced disappearance is directly related to the third element, namely the refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to disclose the fate and whereabouts of the person concerned. 73. The Commission's analysis of this element takes into account, in particular, the existence of a context already addressed by the organs of the inter-American system, especially as regards the grave human rights violations in connection with the coup d’état in 1980 and the dictatorial regime established by the de facto President Luis García Meza, and his policy of repression toward any person or group opposing it, especially leaders and representatives of left-wing parties. That context includes the systematic use of forced disappearance as a repressive mechanism and, as the State itself has admitted, the existence of an apparatus organized to cover up those cases. 74. In the case of the Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru, the Court summarized its case law with respect to forced disappearance, specifically in cases in which the legal characterization of the facts stemmed from "[...] what State agents did after killing the victims, that is to say, the adoption of measures designed to conceal what had really happened or to get rid of any trace of the bodies to avoid their identification or prevent their fate or whereabouts from being established."98 The Court also referred to the standards of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances of the United Nations, whereby what distinguishes forced disappearance from an extrajudicial execution is denial by the perpetrators of the deed, as State agents or with the acquiescence of State agents, "who even after carrying out the execution, refuse to reveal the fate or whereabouts of those persons or to acknowledge that the act was ever committed."99 According the Court reaffirmed that "the existence of more or less circumstantial evidence regarding the death of the victims" does not alter the characterization of the facts as forced disappearance.100 IACHR. Report No. 111/09. Case 11.324, Merits. Narciso González Medina. Dominican Republic, November 10, 2009. Para. 130; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 60. 98 The Court referred to analysis of the cases of Rodríguez Vera et al ( the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice), Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, La Cantuta, Gómez Palomino, 19 Merchants, Bámaca Velásquez and Castillo Páez. See: I/A Court H.R. Case of the Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, par. 164. 99 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 164, among others: Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General comment on the definition of enforced disappearance, A/HRC/7/2, January 10, 2008, p. 14, par. 10. 100 The Court referred to analysis of the cases of Rodríguez Vera et al ( the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice), Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, La Cantuta, Gómez Palomino, 19 Merchants, Bámaca Velásquez and Castillo Páez. See: I/A Court H.R. Case of the Santa Bárbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, par. 163. 97 20