61 7. No one shall be detained for debt. This principle shall not limit the orders of a competent judicial authority issued for non-fulfillment of duties of support. […] 79. Without detriment to the preceding findings concerning the State’s acquiescence to the violation of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention, owing to the grave circumstances and the context in which the facts took place (supra paras. 46 to 49), the Court finds it pertinent to examine and clarify certain aspects of these violations. Accordingly, the Court will examine: (a) the recognition of the continuing nature of forced disappearance of persons; (b) the State’s increased international responsibility because the facts occurred within the framework of “Operation Condor” and due to the failure to comply with the obligation to investigate them effectively; and (c) the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment of the next of kin of the alleged victims. a) Recognition of the continuing or permanent nature of the forced disappearance of persons 80. As indicated above (supra paras. 41, 48 and 49), the State recognized the Court’s competence “to hear the instant case,” because it had ratified the Convention and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. But, over and above the procedural issues and the formal competence of the Court, when acquiescing, the State did not merely consider that the facts were violations of the rights to life, personal liberty and humane treatment, but expressly classified them as forced disappearance of persons of a continuing nature. This is clear from the terms of its acquiescence to the violation of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention to the detriment of the victims, owing to their “forced disappearance up until this time,” as well as the reference made by the State to the Court’s competence in this case, “under the provisions of Article XIII of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons,”59 as well as Article III thereof, which establishes that this offense “shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined.” 81. The Court appreciates the State’s good faith in submitting its acquiescence. In addition to helping define its own historical memory, the State contributes thereby to strengthening a perception of the international community and, in particular, the inter-American system, that recognizes the gravity and the continuing or permanent and autonomous nature of the crime of forced disappearance of persons. The need to deal integrally with forced disappearance as a complex form of human rights violation leads the Court to examine Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, together in this chapter. 82. In this regard, in its constant case law on cases of forced disappearance of persons, the Court has reiterated that this constitutes an illegal 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. The State’s international responsibility is increased when the 59 This article establishes that “[f]or the purposes of this Convention, the processing of petitions or communications presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging the forced disappearance of persons shall be subject to the procedures established in the American Convention on Human Rights, and to the Statutes and Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, including the provisions on precautionary measures.”