98. According to paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the States Parties undertake not to practice and not to tolerate the forced disappearance of persons under any circumstance, and to punish within their jurisdiction those responsible. This is consistent with the State's obligation to respect and ensure the rights, which is contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, and which can be complied with in different ways depending on the specific right that the State must ensure and on the particular needs for protection. 142 99. The Court considers it appropriate to recall the legal grounds that support an integral perspective of the forced disappearance of persons owing to the multiple conducts that, combined towards a single purpose, violate permanently, while they subsist, rights protected by the Convention. 143 Thus, the legal analysis of forced disappearance must be consistent with the complex violation of human rights that it entails. 144 In this regard, when analyzing a presumed forced disappearance, it must be taken into account that the deprivation of liberty should be understood as the beginning of the constitution of a complex violation that is prolonged over time until the victim’s fate and whereabouts are known. The analysis of a possible forced disappearance should not focus in an isolated, divided and fragmented manner only on the detention, or the possible torture, or the risk of loss of life, but rather the focus must be on all the facts that are present in the case being considered by the court, taking into account the case law of the Inter-American Court when interpreting the American Convention. 145 100. Regarding Article 7 of the American Convention, the Court has reiterated that any restriction of the right to personal liberty must only occur for the reasons and under the conditions previously established by the Constitution or by laws enacted in keeping with the Constitution (substantive aspect), and also, strictly subject to the procedures objectively defined in this instrument (formal aspect). 146 Furthermore, the Court has considered that any detention, regardless of its reason or duration, must be duly recorded in the relevant document, clearly stating, at the very least, the reasons for the detention, who executed it, the time of detention and the time of release, as well as a record that the competent judge was advised, in order to protect against any unlawful or arbitrary interference with physical Appeal No. 11821-2003, Fifth Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Santiago de Chile, judgment of January 5, 2004 (both declaring that the offense of forced disappearance is a continuing offense, that it is a crime against humanity, not subject to the statute of limitations, or amnesty); Case of Videla et al., National Federal Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Capital of Argentina, judgment of September 9, 1999 (declaring that forced disappearances are continuing offenses and crimes against humanity, and that they are not subject to the statute of limitations); Case of José Carlos Trujillo, Constitutional Court of Bolivia, constitutional judgment No. 1190/01-R of November 12, 2001 (declaring that offenses of forced disappearance are continuing offenses and that the time frame for calculating their prescription only commences when they cease), and Constitutional Court of Peru, judgment of March 18, 2004, Case file No. 2488-2002-HC/TC (declaring that forced disappearance is a permanent offense until the whereabouts of the victim is established, and recognizing that it consists of multiple offenses. 142 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 73, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 144. 143 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 138, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 114. 144 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2009. Series C No. 186, para. 112, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 129. 145 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 112, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 175. 146 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 176. 36