multiple violation because of its many strands merging toward one objective that jointly and continuously infringe, while they exist, various legal rights protected by the American Convention, especially those safeguarded by the rights to juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity and to personal liberty, set out in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention, respectively.140 115. A forced disappearance places the victim in a state of complete defenselessness. 141 A fundamental safeguard against this phenomenon would be that the deprivations of liberty take place in legally recognized centers where there are registries of those detained. Furthermore, the use of clandestine centers of detention are directly in violation of the rights to life, to personal integrity, and to personal liberty.142 116. Forced disappearance is particularly grave when it forms part of a systematic pattern or is a practice applied or tolerated by the State. 143 The practice of forced disappearance implies, as the Court has already stated, “a crass abandonment of the values that emanate” from the Inter-American System of Human Rights144 and its prohibition has attained the status of jus cogens.”145 117. In view of the above, consideration of the forced disappearances alleged in this case must take into account a series of factors and the context in which they occurred, since only then will the legal analysis be consistent with the complex and continuous nature of this phenomenon.146 B.2 Examination of the facts of the case 118. The facts indicate that during the early morning on December 13, 1974, military personnel broke into the home of Amalia González and that they remained there for several hours. When they learned the location of her son, Luis Eduardo González González, they went there and detained him and took him to a military regiment where he was badly mistreated (supra paras. 73 to 75).147 Days later, when his mother Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 150, 155 to 158, 186 and 187; Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 363, para. 81. Regarding the mention of the human rights violated by forced disappearances, cf. Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, para. 64. 140 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 59 and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, para. 253. 141 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, para. 63 and Case of García and family v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 102. 142 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, para. 82 and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, para. 94. 143 144 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, para. 158 and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, para. 140. 145 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, para. 84 and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, para. 140. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, para. 85 and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, para. 166. The Court made a similar reference in a prior case concerning Uruguay that also involved systematic practices of different violations of human rights during the civil-military dictatorship that ruled from June 27, 1973 to February 28, 1985 (cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 78). 146 The facts indicate that Mr. González González was apprehended together with his wife, Elena Zaffaroni Rocco, who was pregnant (supra paras. 73 to 75). Ms. Zaffaroni Rocco was released in 1978 (supra para. 76) before this Court had jurisdiction to judge Uruguay for human rights violations (supra para. 12). The 147 33