of torture or of the deprivation of life in the specific case. 151 Nevertheless, information exists that indicates that both victims suffered grave mistreatment that can be considered acts of torture and the mere fact of remaining deprived of their liberty in the aforementioned context and conditions represents cruel and inhumane treatment,152 which is a violation of Article 5(1) and (2) of the American Convention. 124. The forced disappearances of Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazú are, due to the nature of the rights violated, an infringement of the norm of jus cogens (supra, para. 116) and is especially grave for being a part of a systematic practice of “State terrorism.”153 As has been mentioned, the facts in this case are linked to a state policy during the military dictatorship of surveillance, repression and control of leftist organizations, as well as the systematic practice of multiple serious violations of human rights, including forced disappearances (supra para. 31). 125. In view of the above, because of the forced disappearances of Luis Eduardo González González and Oscar Tassino Asteazú that continue to this very day, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for violating the rights of both persons to juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity and to personal liberty, recognized in Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1) and 5.2, and 7(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, due to the failure to comply with the obligation to respect and to guarantee those rights established in Article 1(1) thereof, and with Articles I(a) and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. VII.2 RIGHT TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION 154 A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 126. The Commission claimed that the State failed in this case in its obligation to investigate the forced disappearances and the extrajudicial executions. It pointed out that, to date, nobody has been convicted and, therefore, these events continue to be unpunished. It repeated its claim of the failure to observe the duty to investigate based on three aspects: the application of the Expiry Law; the lack of due diligence, and the failure to observe a reasonable time. 127. Expiry Law. - The Commission claimed that the Expiry Law, which the Court had already declared in violation of the Convention, impeded the investigations into the facts of the case as of its promulgation on December 22, 1986 and as an obstacle “at different times.” It added that, although “the investigations into the events in the instant case are open” at the present time […] there is no State certainty regarding the nonCf. Similarly, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, paras. 175 and 187, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 95 and Case of Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, para. 194. 151 Similarly, and related to the same context, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, paras. 94 and 95. 152 Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 99. In footnote 113, related to that paragraph, the Court stated that a violation of that nature “could be classified as a crime against humanity.” 153 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, respectively. This chapter will also examine State responsibility regarding Article I(b) and I(d) of the IACFDP as well as Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 154 35