93. As for the rights violated, forced disappearance violates the right to personal liberty and places the victim
at serious risk of irreparable harm to his or her rights to humane treatment and life. The Court has found that
forced disappearance violates the right to humane treatment since "the mere subjection of an individual to
prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication is in itself cruel and inhuman treatment.’” 114 The
Commission and the Court have determined that it is clear that in the case of a forced disappearance, the victim’s
personal integrity is affected in all its dimensions. 115 The Court has also written that, even if the torture or
deprivation of life of a forced disappearance victim cannot be proven in a given case, subjecting a person to State
agents, or private parties acting with their acquiescence or tolerance, and that practice torture and assassination
with impunity is itself a breach of the duty to prevent violations of the rights to life and physical integrity of the
person. 116
94. According to the case law of both organs of the inter-American system. the practice of disappearances has
frequently involved the secret execution of those detained, without trial, followed by concealment of the corpse
in order to eliminate any material evidence of the crime and to ensure absolute impunity, which entails a brutal
violation of the right to life, established in Article 4 of the Convention.117 Case law has also determined that when
a person has disappeared in violent circumstances and remained disappeared for a long time it is reasonable to
presume that he or she has been killed.118
95. The Commission has also found that in cases of forced disappearance of persons, given the multiple and
complex nature of this grave violation of human rights, its execution can include the specific infringement of the
right to the acknowledgment of juridical personality.119 The Inter-American Court has also pointed that out.120
This is because, apart from the fact that the disappeared person can no longer exercise and enjoy other rights,
their disappearance seeks "not only one of the most serious forms of removing a person from every sphere of
the legal system, but also to deny their very existence and leave them in a type of limbo or indeterminate legal
situation in the eyes of society and the State."121 The Commission considers the forced disappearance also entails
a violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection in respect of the disappeared victim, given
the lack of actions to ascertain his or her whereabouts through effective investigations and the impossibility of
filing appeals on her or his behalf given the State's denial that the person concerned in in its custody.
96. Forced disappearance of persons 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.122 The Commission
I/A Court HR. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment
of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 171; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs.
Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, par. 85.
115 I/A Court HR. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191,
par. 58; and IACHR, Report No. 5/16, Cases 11.053, 11.054, 12.224, 12.225, and 12.823. Merits. Peru. April 13, 2016, par. 167.
116 I/A Court HR. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, par. 59;
Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202,
par. 85; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009.
Series C No. 209, par. 154.
117 I/A Court HR. Case of the 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, par.154; I/A Court H.R, case of Bámaca Velásquez.
Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, par.130; and IACHR, Report No. 44/00. Case 10,820. Américo Zavala Martínez. Peru. April
13, 2000, par. 41.
118 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 188 and IACHR. Application to the Inter-American
Court in case 12.529. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luís Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. May 12, 2009, par. 248.
119 IACHR. Application to the Inter-American Court in the following cases: Renato Ticona Estradaet al. (12.527), paras. 153-165; Rosendo
Radilla Pacheco (12.511), paras.. 138-145; Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro (11.385), paras. 167-176; Julia Gómez Lund et al. (11.552), paras.
208-220; Florencio Chitay Nech (12.599), paras. 136/-146, Case 12.529, Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luís Ibsen Peña, paras. 251-262;
and Narciso González Medina et al. (11.324), paras. 138-149.
120 I/A Court HR. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009.
Series C No. 202, paragraphs 91-92, Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of
November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par. 157.
121 I/A Court HR. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009.
Series C No. 202, par. 90. See also: IACHR, Report No. 5/16, Cases 11.053, 11.054, 12.224, 12.225, and 12.823. Merits. Peru. April 13, 2016,
par. 166.
122 IACHR. Report No. 111/09. Case 11,324. Merits. Narciso González Medina. Dominican Republic, November 10, 2009. Par. 130; and I/A
Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of Tuesday, September 22, 2009.
Series C No. 202, par. 60.
114
19