211. Furthermore, the Court has considered that in cases of forced disappearance, given the multiple and complex nature of this grave violation of human rights, its execution leads to specific infringement of the right to juridical personality.267 This is because, in addition to the fact that the disappeared person can no longer enjoy and exercise the rights to which he or she is entitled, forced disappearance is “not only one of the most serious forms of placing the person outside the protection of the law but it also entails to deny that person's existence and to place him or her in a kind of limbo or uncertain legal situation before the society [and] the State.”268 212. As far as its characteristics are concerned, forced disappearance is made up of the following cumulative and concurring elements: (i) deprivation of liberty; (ii) direct involvement or acquiescence of State agents; and (iii) refusal to disclose the fate and whereabouts of the person concerned.269 Within the inter-American system, this characterization derives from the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (hereinafter “IACFDP”), to which the State of Mexico has been party since April 9, 2002.270 In addition, several international instruments as well as the jurisprudence of international bodies and national courts are consistent with the aforementioned definition.271 213. The Commission will then determine whether what happened to Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes constituted forced disappearance in light of each of the elements described, taking available evidence into account, including circumstantial evidence, which, as mentioned above, is especially relevant in cases of forced disappearance because of the very nature of the violation. 1. Deprivation of liberty 214. With regard to the deprivation of liberty, the Commission observes that there are eye witnesses who, as a whole, indicate that José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, and Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes were deprived of liberty during the night of December 29, 2009, in Ejido Benito [… continuation] Series C No. 202, para. 85; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 154. 267 I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, paras. 91-92; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 157. 268 I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 90. 269 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97; Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 55; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 60. 270 In this regard, it bears mentioning that the Court has held that the characteristics of forced disappearance derive from the very definition of Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the travaux préparatoires for said Convention, and its preamble and regulations. See: I/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, para. 140, citing: the Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1987-1988, Chapter V.II. This crime “is permanent when it is no [sic] consummated in an instantaneous manner but permanently and it is prolonged throughout the time in which the person continues to be missing” (OEA/CP-CAJP, Report of the Chairman to Review the Draft IACFDP, document OEA/Ser.G/CP/CAJP-925/93 rev. 1, of January 25, 1994, p. 10). 271 In the inter-American system, see: I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97; Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 55; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 60. In the European system, see: ECHR Case of Kurt v. Turkey. Application No. 15/1997/799/1002. Judgment of May 25, 1998, paras. 124-128; Case of Çakici v. Turkey, Application No. 23657/94. Judgment of July 8, 1999, paras. 104-106. In the national courts, see: Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Judgment of August 10, 2007; Case of Revocation of Pinochet’s Immunity, Plenum of the Supreme Court of Chile, Judgment of August 8, 2000; Case of Castillo Páez, Constitutional Court of Peru, Judgment of March 18, 2004, among other cases.