requested that the military authorities provide information on her son, they did not deny his detention but did state that he was deprived of his liberty, indicating that they had taken him to recognize a place and that he had fled from there (supra para. 76). 119. On July 19, 1977, three armed members of the military went to the residence of Óscar Tassino Asteazú and waited until he arrived, threatening the persons who were there. When he arrived, he was violently grabbed and beaten. He was taken away the next day. There is information that he was taken to the La Tablada clandestine detention center and that he was badly mistreated (supra paras. 88 and 96). When his wife sought information from the State authorities, they denied that he had been detained (supra para. 89). 120. Despite the different versions on the possible deaths of Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazú and the fate of their remains, their deaths have not been clearly proved. The doubts arise from affirmations of the State, which has informed that the “material search” continues to discover their whereabouts (infra para. 134). 121. Since Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazu were deprived of their liberty in a context of illegal detentions in clandestine centers, both detentions were manifestly unlawful in violation of Article 7(1) of the Convention. The detentions constitute the initial acts of a complex violation of the rights involved in a forced disappearance. They also imply the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to maintain persons deprived of their liberty in officially recognized detention centers and to present them without delay before the competent judicial authorities. 148 122. The victims were placed in a situation of legal uncertainty that prevented them from effectively exercising their rights, which, as the Court has stated, is “one of most serious forms of non-compliance of the State’s duty to respect and guarantee human rights.”149 Therefore, the right of both victims to juridical personality, found in Article 3 of the American Convention, was violated. 123. Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazú were under the control of military authorities who, at the time of their forced disappearances, tortured and murdered with impunity (supra para. 31).150 Each was last seen while under the custody of State agents. This is, per se, a violation of the rights to personal integrity and to life, recognized in Articles 5 and 4 of the American Convention, respectively, even if there is no evidence infringement of the rights of Ms. Zaffaroni Rocco that occurred before April 19, 1985, the date on which Uruguay accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, have not been submitted to it (supra para 1). 148 Article XI of the IACFDP reads: Every person deprived of liberty shall be held in an officially recognized place of detention and be brought before a competent judicial authority without delay, in accordance with the applicable domestic law. The States Parties shall establish and maintain official up-to-date registries of their detainees and, in accordance with their domestic law, shall make them available to relatives, judges, attorneys, any other person having a legitimate interest, and other authorities. Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, para. 101 and Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, para. 159. 149 The nature of the impunity of such violations of human rights perpetrated by State agents, when the forced disappearances of the victims in this case occurred, was noted previously by the Court (cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 95). 150 34