206. In turn, Article I.a of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons reads as follows: Article I The States Parties to this Convention undertake: a. Not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees. 207. The constant case law of the inter-American system on cases of forced disappearance of persons has indicated that this an unlawful act that gives rise to a multiple and continuing violation of several rights protected by the American Convention and places the victim in a state of complete defenselessness, giving rise to other related crimes. It is in sum, a crime against humanity that entails a crass abandonment of the essential principles upon which the inter-American system is based. 262 208. Thus the States are duty-bound not to practice or tolerate forced disappearance of persons in any circumstances. Similarly, they must take reasonable steps to prevent the commission of this crime, seriously investigate what occurred in order to identify those responsible and impose appropriate punishment, and ensure the victims adequate compensation.263 These obligations are expressly recognized in Articles I.a and I.b of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 209. According to its case law taken as a whole, the Commission considers forced disappearance to be a complex violation of human rights that continues in time until as long as the whereabouts of the victim or his remains is unknown. A disappearance as such ceases only when the victim appears or his remains are found264. 210. As concerns violated rights, forced disappearance violates the right to personal liberty and places victims seriously at risk of suffering irreparable damage to their right to humane treatment and to life. The Court has indicated that forced disappearance violates the right to humane treatment since “the mere subjection of an individual to prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication is in itself cruel and inhuman treatment.”265 Similarly, the Court has held that bringing detainees before agents of the State or individuals acting with the State’s acquiescence or tolerance who engage in torture and murder with impunity constitutes, in itself, an infringement of the duty to prevent violations of the rights to humane treatment and life, even if the acts of torture or deprivation of life of the victim of disappearance in a specific case cannot be proven.266 262 IACHR, Report 101/01. Case 10.247 et al., Extrajudicial Executions and Forced Disappearances of Persons. Peru. October 11, 2001, para. 178; IACHR. Application to the Inter-American Court, Case No. 11.324, Narciso González et al., Dominican Republic, May 2, 2010, para. 103; Application to the Inter-American Court, Case No. 12.517, Gregoria Herminia Contreras et al., El Salvador, June 28, 2010, para. 131; I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C, No. 153, para. 82; I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C, No. 136, para. 92; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C, No. 118, paras. 100 to 106; I/A Court H.R., Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (art. 63.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C., No. 108, para. 41. 263 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 174; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. para. 62; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 142. 264 IACHR. Application to the Inter-American Court, Case No. 12.529, Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas y José Luis Ibsen Peña., Bolivia, May 12, 2009, para. 106. 265 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 171; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 85. 266 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 59; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. [continues …]