rights to personal integrity, protection of honor, and protection of the family, as well as the rights of the child. VII.1 RIGHTS TO RECOGNITION AS A PERSON BEFORE THE LAW, TO LIFE, TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY, AND TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS 104 AND ARTICLE I(A) OF THE CIDFP A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 67. The Commission noted that sufficient evidence exists to classify what happened to Óscar Iván Tabares Toro as a forced disappearance. Regarding the deprivation of liberty and the participation of state agents, it noted that there was sufficient evidence that the last time Óscar Tabares was seen, he was under the control of state agents and that his whereabouts have been unknown since then. With respect to the refusal to disclose his whereabouts, it observed that after the disappearance of the alleged victim, the National Army did not initiate a search, alert the relatives to the situation, or provide assistance for a search. On the contrary, it initiated proceedings against him within the military criminal jurisdiction for attempted homicide, alleging that he had thrown a grenade at his superiors and fled. The Commission therefore held that the State had violated Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), and 7(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1), to his detriment. It also concluded that I(a) of the CIDFP had been violated. In assessing the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility, the Commission reaffirmed its arguments in the Merits Report. 68. In the portion of their brief with pleadings, motions, and evidence that addressed the forced disappearance of the victim, the representatives held that it is possible to infer a deprivation of liberty because Óscar Tabares was in San Juanito, Meta, for his military duties on the night of December 28, 1997, after which there is no information on him. They further noted that there was state participation because what happened to the alleged victim was the result of the antipathy his superiors had toward him. Lastly, they stressed the refusal to acknowledge the detention of Óscar Tabares and to disclose his whereabouts. They asked the Court to declare the State responsible for violating Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), and 7(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that convention, as well as Article I(a) of the CIDFP. 69. After the State's full acknowledgment of responsibility, the representatives stressed in their final written arguments the importance of the Court ruling on the direct, active involvement of members of the National Army in carrying out the forced disappearance. 70. At the public hearing of this case, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for violating serviceman Tabares Toro's rights to recognition as a person, to life, to personal integrity, and to personal liberty established in Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), and 7(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) of that instrument, as well as Article I(a) of the CIDFP, for his disappearance. Specifically, it recognized that state agents directly participated in the events and that the victim was in the special situation of being subject to the authority of the National Army, which was in the role of guarantor. B. Considerations of the Court 71. This Court has repeatedly noted that forced disappearance violates multiple norms and is an ongoing or continuous offense that begins with the individual's deprivation of liberty and the lack of information about them, and continues as long as their whereabouts are unknown or until their remains are conclusively identified. 105 It has also established that forced disappearance is a human rights violation consisting of three concurrent elements: a) deprivation of liberty, b) direct involvement of governmental Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, and 1(1) of the American Convention, respectively. Allegations concerning the obligations in Article I(a) of the CIDFP are also examined. 105 Cf. Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons. Article III; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 155–157; and Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of October 17, 2022. Series C No. 467, para. 75. 104 18