32 116. In the present case, Florencio Chitay Nech was deliberately obstructed, by the structure of the State, from participating in his democratic exercise in representation of his community, which according to their vision and tradition was elected to serve and contribute to the construction of their free development.121 Likewise, the Tribunal notices that it is unreasonable that while the indigenous population is one of the majoritarian populations in Guatemala, their indigenous representation from leaders such Florencio Chitay Nech was shattered. 117. Therefore, the State did not fulfill its duty to respect and guarantee the political rights of Florencio Chitay Nech, given that due to his forced disappearance, configured as a selective disappearance, he was deprived from the exercise of the right to political participation in representation of his community, recognized in Article 23(1), subparagraph a) of the American Convention. 4. 118. Breaches of the ICFDP in the present case The representatives alleged the violation of Articles I(a), II, and III of the ICFDP. 119. In regard to Article I(a)122 of the ICFDP, that entered into force in March 28, 1996, and that was ratified by the State in February 2000, and taking into consideration that the forced disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech subsists to this date, the Court finds that the State has breached its obligation to not practice, permit, or tolerate such practice. 120. For its part, Article II123 of the ICFDP does not constitute an obligation in itself, instead it contains a definition of the concept of forced disappearance, to which the Court considers that said Article has not been met in the cas de espèce. Lastly, regarding the argument of the representatives of the alleged breach of Article III of the ICFDP,124 the 121 Cf. Case Yatama V. Nicaragua, supra note 108, paras. 225, 226 and 227. 122 The text of Article I of the ICFDP establishes that States Party to the Convention undertake: a. Not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees; b. To punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories; c. To cooperate with one another in helping to prevent, punish, and eliminate the forced disappearance of persons; d. To take legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other measures necessary to comply with the commitments undertaken in this Convention. 123 The text of Article II of the ICFDP notes that for the purposes of this Convention, forced disappearance is considered to be 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. 124 The text of Article III of the ICFDP notes that the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional procedures, the legislative measures that may be needed to define the forced disappearance of persons as an offense and to impose an appropriate punishment commensurate with its extreme gravity. This offense shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined.