the subsequent lack of information about his or her fate, and remains until the whereabouts of the disappeared person are known or their remains are identified with certainty. 133 96. In this regard, the Court has stated that this multiple violation of several rights protected by the American Convention places the victim in a situation of complete defenselessness, giving rise to other related violations, and being particularly serious when it forms part of a systematic pattern or practice applied or tolerated by the State. 134 Thus, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons also reaffirms in its preamble “that the systematic practice of forced disappearance of persons constitutes a crime against humanity.” In sum, the practice of forced disappearance involves a heinous abandonment of the essential principles on which the inter-American human rights system is founded 135 and its prohibition has achieved jus cogens status. 136 97. In this regard, the following have been indicated as the concurrent and constituent elements of forced disappearance: (a) the deprivation of liberty; (b) the direct intervention of State agents or their acquiescence, and (c) the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or the whereabouts of the person concerned. 137 This Court developed this characterization of forced disappearance even before the definition contained in Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, and it is consistent with other definitions in different international instruments, 138 the case law of the European human rights system, 139 decisions of the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 140 and decisions of domestic high courts. 141 133 Cf. inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 155 to 157, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 112. 134 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 41, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 83. 135 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 158, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 114. 136 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 84, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 114. 137 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 115. 138 Cf. Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/177, of 20 December 2006; article 7.2.i) of the Statute of Rome of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9, of 17 July 1998, and Preamble to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, U.N. Doc. A/RES/47/133 of 12 February 1993. See, also, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 60, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 115. 139 In this regard, the following cases of forced disappearance of persons may be consulted: ECHR, Cyprus v. Turkey [Grand Chamber], no 25781/94, paras. 132 to 134, 147 and 148, 10 May 2001, and ECHR, Varnava and Others v. Turkey [Grand Chamber], nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, paras. 111 to 113, 117 and 118, 133, 138 and 145, 10 January 2008. 140 In this regard, see, Messaouda Grioua and Mohamed Grioua v. Algeria, CCPR/C/90/D/1327/2004 (2007), Communication No. 1327/2004, 16 August 2007, para. 7.2, 7.5 to 7.9; Yasoda Sharma and Surya Prasad Sharma v. Nepal, CCPR/C/94/D/1469/2006 (2008), Communication No. 1469/2006, 6 November 2008, para. 7.4, 7.6 to 7.9; Zohra Madoui and Menouar Madoui v. Algeria, CCPR/C/94/D/1495/2006 (2008), Communication No. 1495/2006, 1 December 2008, para. 7.2, 7.4 to 7.8, and Nydia Erika Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia, CCPR/C/55/D/563/1993, Communication No. 563/1993, 13 November 1995, para. 8.3 to 8.6. 141 Cf. Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, judgment of August 10, 2007 (declaring the permanent nature and multiple offenses involved in the offense of forced disappearance); Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico, Judgment P./J. 87/2004, “Forced disappearance of persons. The time frame for calculating the statute of limitations only commences when the victim appears or his or her fate has been established” (affirming that forced disappearances are permanent offenses and that the statute of limitations must be calculated once it has ceased); Case of the withdrawal of immunity from Pinochet, Plenary of the Supreme Court of Chile, judgment of August 8, 2000; Case of Sandoval, 35