Court has clearly stated that the continuous and ongoing nature of forced disappearance of persons is based on the fact that the offense begins with the deprivation of liberty of the individual and the subsequent lack of information about his fate and this remains the case until his whereabouts are known or his remains are found.127 47. With respect to the rights that are violated, forced disappearance violates the right to personal liberty and places the victim in a serious situation of risk of suffering irreparable harm to his right to physical integrity and life. The Court has held that the practice of forced disappearance often involves secret execution without trial, followed by concealment of the body to eliminate any material evidence of the crime and to ensure the impunity of those responsible. This is a flagrant violation of the right to life.128 Furthermore, even if acts of torture or the deprivation of life of the victim of disappearance cannot be proven in a particular case, subjecting detainees to State agents or private individuals who act with their tolerance or acquiescence, who engage in torture and murder with impunity, is itself a breach of the duty to prevent violations of the rights to life and physical integrity.129 48. Additionally, the Court has found that cases of forced disappearance give rise to the specific violation of the right to recognition as a person before the law, given the multiple and complex nature of this serious human rights violation, which entails the State’s refusal to acknowledge that the victim is under its custody and to provide information in that regard, in order to create uncertainty as to his whereabouts, life or death, cause intimidation and suppression of rights.130 In fact, in addition to the disappeared person no longer being able to exercise and enjoy all rights to which he is entitled, his disappearance not only aims at one of the most serious forms of placing the person outside of the protection of the law, but also entails denying that person’s existence itself and placing him in a kind of limbo or uncertain legal situation before society, the State and even the international community.131 49. Accordingly, the Commission will determine whether what happened to Antonio González Méndez was a forced disappearance in light of the facts of the case taken as a whole. Bearing in mind that there is no dispute as to the fact that Antonio González has disappeared, but instead the disagreement between the parties in this case is centered on whether or not there is proof of deprivation of liberty by State agents or private individuals acting with the acquiescence and tolerance of the Mexican State, the Commission deems it pertinent to jointly examine the first two elements of the illegal act. i. As regards deprivation of liberty with direct intervention or acquiescence of State agents 50. The Commission notes that, based on available evidence, Antonio González Méndez was last seen by his wife Sonia López Juárez as he left his residence in the company of Juan Regino López Leoporto at around midnight on January 18, 1999. There is no direct evidence of Antonio González being deprived of liberty by State agents or by paramilitary members of Paz y Justicia with the support or acquiescence of State agents and, therefore, the Commission will examine whether or not the elements of the crime are present in light of circumstantial or presumptive evidence. As noted above, this evidence is especially important in cases of forced disappearance because of the very nature of this violation. et al ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253 (“Gudiel Álvarez et al Judgment”), par. 193; Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012 Series C No. 258 (“García and family Judgment”), par. 97; Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274 (“Osorio Rivera and Family Judgment”), par. 113; Case of Members of the Chichupac Village and Neighboring Communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, par. 133. 127 IA Court of HR. Case of the Santa Barbara Campesino Community v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299 (“Santa Bárbara Campesino Community Judgment”), par. 161. See also: Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 155; Blake Judgment, pars. 65-67; Osorio Rivera and Family Judgment, par. 31. 128 IA Court of HR. Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 157. 129 IA Court of HR. Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 175; Ticona Estrada Judgment, par. 59; Anzualdo Castro Judgment, par. 85; and Radilla Pacheco Judgment, par. 153. 130 IA Court of HR. Anzualdo Castro Judgment, pars. 90-92; Radilla Pacheco Judgment, par. 157. 131 IA Court of HR. Anzualdo Castro Judgment, par. 90. 17