disappearance, as a multiple and complex violation, involves the violation of all those rights that the disappeared person is unable to exercise. 111. As a result of the State’s actions described in this chapter, the Court also considers that the State failed to comply with its obligation not to implement or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons under any circumstance, established in Article I(a) of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance. 112. The Inter-American Court emphasizes the seriousness of the facts sub judice, which have occurred since 1984, and took place within a systematic State practice of forced disappearance verified in the Court’s case law (supra para. 54). The Court also observes that, at the time, forced disappearances formed part of a State policy against those identified as internal enemies under the National Security Doctrine (supra para. 51). Various State security forces played a role in this policy, including the Police and the Army (supra para. 52). The Court must also point out that the existence of official documents such as the Diario Militar and the records of the “Patrol and Cleansing Operations” reveals the organization and planning behind the forced disappearances, as well as the coordination that existed among senior political and/or military authorities. In this regard, the report of the Peace Secretariat, taking into account the information found in the Historical Archive of the National Police, indicates that the captures were planned with information previously collected by different State agencies. In the instant case, it should be stressed that the CEH concluded that, during the internal armed conflict, forced disappearances were “implemented systematically in different regions and affected a large part of the population, constituting a crime against humanity.” 166 113. The representatives also alleged the violation of Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance. However, this Court has held that Article II of this Convention does not, in itself, constitute an obligation; rather it is a definition of forced disappearance. Therefore, as the State has argued, the Court considers that it is not in order to declare non-compliance with this article in the instant case. 167 114. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to personal liberty, personal integrity, life, and juridical personality, recognized in Articles 7(1), 5(1) and 5(2), 4(1) and 3, owing to the State’s failure to comply with its obligation to respect those rights, established in Article 1(1), all of the American Convention, and in relation to Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García. The assessment of the obligation to ensure those rights by a diligent and effective investigation into what happened is made in Chapter VIII-2 of this Judgment. II. The freedom of association 168 and expression 169 of Edgar Fernando García 115. The Commission indicated that “the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression and its purpose was to suppress 166 Cf. CEH, supra, volume II, pp. 412, para. 2058. 167 Cf. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 120. 168 Article 16(1) of the Convention establishes that: “[e]veryone has the right to associate freely for ideological, religious, political, economic, labor, social, cultural, sports, or other purposes.” 169 Article 13(1) of the Convention establishes that: “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of thought and expression. This right includes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing, in print, in the form of art, or through any other medium of one's choice.” 40