145. Indeed, the Commission observes that as a result of the attack Mr. Omeara acquired a deficiency that left him in a disabled and, subsequently, caused his death six months later. The Commission notes that according to medical records his death was the result of multiple late complications that patients with spinal cord trauma suffer.211 iv. Conclusion 146. In light of the above considerations, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible both for the attack that occurred on January 28, 1994, which Noel Emiro Omeara survived, and for his subsequent death. All of the foregoing is in violation of the duty to respect and ensure rights under Articles 5 (right to humane treatment) and 4 (right to life) of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) of said treaty. 147. With regard to the petitioners' submissions concerning a violation of the right to personal security enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention, the Commission considers that those submissions have been analyzed in this section and, therefore, there is no need to make separate determinations in relation to that provision in this case. b. Events Relating to Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval i. Disappearance and Subsequent Execution 148. The petitioners have indicated that the disappearance and subsequent death of Manuel Guillermo Omeara Miraval was the consequence of acts or omissions by agents of the State. The State, for its part, holds that the involvement of its agents has not been proved. In this section, the Commission analyzes if there is sufficient evidence to arrive at the conviction that what happened was a forced disappearance attributable to the State, taking into account the particular features of the attribution of this crime to the State. 149. In that regard, the Commission recalls that the Court has defined forced disappearance as the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.212 The Court has stated a number of times that forced disappearance, whose prohibition has the character of jus cogens, constitutes a multiple violation of several rights protected by the American Convention, including the rights to life, juridical personality, humane treatment, and personal liberty.213 150. As regards the specific characteristics of the crime of forced disappearance, the court has found that the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, like other international instruments,214 establishes that forced disappearance comprises the following concurrent, basic elements: (a) deprivation of liberty; (b) direct involvement of governmental officials or acquiescence thereof; and (c) 211 The Commission has no specific information to the effect that during that time he received adequate medical treatment for the physical and psychological harm that he suffered. 212 I/A Court H.R. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, par. 126. 213I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par. 139; Case of Goiburú et al. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, par. 84; and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012 Series C No. Series C No. 190, par. 91. 214The Court makes references to the following instruments: United Nations Economic and Social Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General comment on article 4 of the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, 15 December 1996. (E/CN. 4/1996/38), para. 55; and Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Forced Disappearance. 37