44 disappearance by the Commission and the representatives. It should be noted, also, that the names of these 81 persons appear in the Merits Report as alleged victims of forced disappearance, extrajudicial execution and/or other alleged human rights violations. It is for this Court to determine, within the sphere of its jurisdiction and in accordance with the American Convention and other inter-American treaties that grant it jurisdiction, whether the 81 persons indicated were victims of forced disappearance. 140. According to the definition contained in the ICFDP and the jurisprudence of this Court, “one of the characteristics of forced disappearance, unlike extrajudicial execution, is the State’s refusal to acknowledge that the victim is under its control and to provide information about it, with the aim of creating uncertainty regarding his or her whereabouts, life or death, and to provoke intimidation and suppression of rights.” 155 This Court has recognized that the practice of forced disappearance has often included the execution of detainees, in secret and without trial, followed by the concealment of the body to erase all material traces of the crime and to procure impunity of those who committed it. 156 In this regard, the Court has heard cases in which the existence of more or less evidence of the death of the victims did not change the classification of forced disappearance. 157 It was precisely what the State agents did after the victims were killed, that is, the adoption of measures aimed at hiding what had really happened or erasing all traces of the bodies to prevent their identification or to prevent their fate and whereabouts from being established, that allowed the Court to conclude the forced disappearance of the victims. 158 141. As noted previously, it is in this sense that the acts constituting forced disappearance are permanent in nature as long as the whereabouts of the victim are not known or his remains are not found (supra para. 134). However - and particularly in relation to the latter aspect- the Court has repeatedly indicated that it is not merely a matter of finding the remains of a specific person but that this, logically, must be accompanied by tests or analyses that make it possible to prove that the remains do indeed correspond to that person. 159 As long as the remains are not duly located and identified, the forced disappearance continues to be perpetrated. 160 In this regard, the Court recalls that criminal investigation and prosecution is not incompatible with the adoption of different adequate and effective mechanisms to establish the whereabouts of disappeared persons or locate their remains in order to determine their identity with certainty, so that both 54. Mateo Grave; 55. Juan Alvarado Grave; 56. Pedro Depaz Ciprián; 57. Víctor Alvarado Valey; 58. Ceferino Alvarado Sucup; 59. Enriqueta Tecú Chiquito; 60. Rosa González Tecú; 61. Luciano Alvarado Xitumul; 62. Héctor Rolando Alvarado García; 63. Adela Florentina Alvarado García; 64. Luciana Xitumul Ixpancoc; 65. María Concepción Xitumul; 66. a girl of unknown name; 67. Medardo Juárez García; 68. Efraín García Depaz; 69. Fidel Alvarado Sucup; 70. Domingo Reyes; 71. Andres Reyes; 72. Santiago Reyes; 73. Antonio Chen Mendoza; 74. Pedro Siana; 75. Lorenzo Depaz Ciprián; 76. Leonardo Cahuec; 77. Juan Mendoza Sucup; 78. José Cruz Mendoza; 79. María Concepción Chen; 80. Casimiro Siana, and 81. Marcelo Sic Chen. 155 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 91, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, para. 163. 156 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 157, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, para. 159. 157 In this regard, see Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, paras. 199, 206 and 214, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, paras. 123 and 125. 158 Cf. Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, para. 164. In this regard, the United Nations Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances has stated that “a detention followed by an extrajudicial execution constitutes an enforced disappearance in the real sense, provided that such detention or deprivation of liberty was carried out by government agents, of any sector or at any level, or by organized or private groups acting on behalf of or with the direct or indirect support, consent or acquiescence of the Government and who, subsequent to the arrest, or even after the execution has been carried out, refuse to disclose the fate or whereabouts of such persons or to acknowledge that the act was committed at all.” Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Information Leaflet No. 6/REV.3, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2009, p. 14, and Report of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances, General Comment on the definition of enforced disappearances, A/HRC/7/2, January 10, 2008, p. 14, para. 10. The foregoing, “even though [the detention] is of short duration.” Report of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearance, A/HRC/7/2, January 10, 2008, p. 95, para. 427. 159 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 82, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, para. 165. 160 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 20056. Series C No. 162, para. 114, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, para. 165.