52 165. Thus, as noted previously, the acts that constitute forced disappearance are permanent in nature for as long as the victim’s whereabouts are unknown or his remains are not found. However - particularly in relation to the latter aspect- the Court has reiterated that it is not merely a matter of finding the remains of a certain person but that this, logically, must be accompanied by tests or analyses that make it possible to prove that, in fact, those remains correspond to that person. Therefore, in cases of presumed forced disappearance in which there are indications that the alleged victim has died, the determination of whether a forced disappearance existed and has ceased, and when the remains have been located, necessarily involves establishing, in the most reliable manner, the identity of the individual to whom the remains belong. In this regard, the relevant authorities must proceed to the prompt exhumation of the mortal remains so that these may be examined by a competent professional. 194 Such exhumation must be carried out in a manner that protects the integrity of the remains in order to establish, to the extent possible, the identity of the deceased person, the date of death, the manner and cause of death, and the existence of possible injuries or signs of torture. 195 Until the remains are duly located and identified, the forced disappearance continues to be executed. 196 166. The Court recalls that a forced disappearance is constituted by multiple violations of several rights, owing to the multiple acts which, combined towards a single purpose, violate permanently, while they subsist, rights protected by the Convention. 197 Thus, the legal analysis of a possible forced disappearance must be consistent with the complex violation of human rights that it entails, and should not focus in an isolated, divided and fragmented manner only on the detention, or the possible torture, or the risk of loss of life. 198 In that regard, its analysis must encompass the totality of the facts submitted to the consideration of the Court. Only in this way is the legal analysis of the forced disappearance consistent with the complex violation of human rights involved. 199 Given the multiple and complex nature of forced disappearance, the Court will analyze in the following order the elements that, taken together, serve to determine whether in this case the victims were forcibly disappeared: a) the refusal of the military authorities to acknowledge the detention of the victims in the first days after the events occurred; b) the modus operandi used to destroy evidence during the first days after the events; c) uncertainty regarding the evidence collected on July 18, 1991; d) the registration of death certificates in 1991 and 1992 with false ages, and e) procedures related to the search, recovery, analysis and eventual identification of human remains. a) The refusal of the military authorities to acknowledge the detention of the victims in the first days after the events occurred 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. 194 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, para. 82, and Case Gudiel Álvarez and other ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, supra, para. 207. 195 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 114, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, para. 82. In this regard see the “Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions”, recommended by the United Nations Economic and Social Council in Resolution 1989/65 of May 24, 1989. See also, the “Model Protocol for Disinterment and Analysis of Skeletal Remains” of the Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, U.N. Doc. ST/CSDHA/12 (1991). 196 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 114, and Case Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 207. 197 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 138, and Case of García and Family Members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 99. 198 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 112, and Case of García and Family Members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 99. 199 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 112, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, supra, para. 116.