26 The need to consider integrally the offense of forced disappearance of an autonomous, continuing or permanent nature, composed of multiple elements with their complex interrelationships, and related criminal acts, can be deduced not only from the its definition in the abovementioned Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the travaux préparatoires for this 126 instrument , its preamble and provisions, but also from Article 17(1) of the 1992 United Nations Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Forced disappearance, which even adds one further element, related to the obligation to investigate, by indicating that this must be considered “a continuing offence as long as the perpetrators continue to conceal the fate and the whereabouts of persons who have disappeared and these facts have not been clarified.” International case law also reflects this 127 understanding as do Articles 4 and 8(1)(b) of the abovementioned United Nations international 128 convention on this matter. 145. Recently the Inter-American Court has held, reaffirming its considerations, This Court’s case law has been in the vanguard of the consolidation of a comprehensive perspective of the multiple offenses against the rights affected and the permanent or continuing nature of the offense of forced 129 disappearance of persons , in which the act of disappearance and its execution begin with the deprivation of liberty of the person and the subsequent absence of information on their whereabouts, and remain while the whereabouts of the disappeared person is not known or until their remains are identified with certainty. The Court developed this characterization of forced disappearance even before the definition included in the 130 Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 146. Among the distinctive characteristics of disappearance are the means used to carry it out, which are designed to conceal any evidence of the facts, the corresponding responsibility, and the fate of the victim. Another feature is the manner in which the failure to elucidate the facts and identify those responsible affects not only the direct victim, but also their family and society in general. 147. In keeping with its consolidated case law, the Commission finds that forced disappearance is a complex human rights violation that continues in time so long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim are not known. The disappearance as such only ceases when the victim appears, his or her fate is established or his or her remains are located. The Commission has adopted an integral approach to this human rights violation, understanding it as a continuing violation so as to analyze and determine the full extent of the State’s responsibility. It should be borne in mind that so long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim are not determined or their remains located and identified, the family and the rest of society must endure the experience of a forced disappearance with all the attendant consequences. 126 I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006.. Series C No. 153. Para. 82. Citing: Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 19871988, Chapter V.II. This crime “is permanent insofar as it is committed not in an instantaneous way but permanently, and is prolonged as long as the person remains disappeared” (OEA/CP-CAJP, Report of the Chairman of the Working Group Entrusted with Analyzing the Draft Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, doc. OEA/Ser.G/CP/CAJP-925/93 rev.1, of January 25, 1994, p. 10). 127 I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006.. Series C No. 153. Para. 82. Citing: European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus v. Turkey, judgment of 10 May 2001, Application No. 25781/94, paras. 136, 150 and 158; United Nations Human Rights Committee, case of Ivan Somers v. Hungary, Communication No. 566/1993, 57th session, CCPR/C/57/D/566/1993 (1996), July 23, 1996, para. 6.3; case of E. and A.K. v. Hungary, Communication No. 520/1992, 50th session, CCPR/C/50/D/520/1992 (1994), May 5, 1994, para. 6.4, and case of Solórzano v. Venezuela, Communication No. 156/1983, 27th session, CCPR/C/27/D/156/1983, March 26, 1986, para. 5.6. 128 I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Judgment on the Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006.. Series C No. 153. Para. 83. 129 Narciso 50. Citing. See Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 102. The European Court of Human Rights has also considered the continuing or permanent nature of the forced disappearance of persons in the case of Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, paras. 136, 150 and 158, 2001-IV. 130 Narciso. 50.