30 165. Article 3 of the American Convention establishes: Every person has the right to recognition as a person before the law. 166. Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 167. According to the case-law of the Inter-American Court, in cases of forced disappearance of persons, it is not necessary to make a detailed analysis in relation to each of the guarantees established in Article 7 of the American Convention. In the view of the Inter-American Court, when it is shown that the deprivation of liberty constituted a step prior to the disappearance of the victims, it is unnecessary to determine whether the alleged victims were informed of the motives of their detention, if this was unrelated to the motives and conditions established in the legislation in force at the time of the 138 facts, or whether the act of detention was unreasonable, unforeseeable, or lacking proportionality. 168. The Court has also indicated that on analyzing a case of forced disappearance one must bear in mind that the deprivation of liberty of the individual should be understood as just the beginning of a complex violation that is drawn out in time until one learns of the fate and whereabouts of the alleged 139 victim. 169. As for the right to humane treatment, the Inter-American Court has recognized that a “person who is unlawfully detained is in an exacerbated situation of vulnerability creating a real risk that 140 his other rights, such as the right to humane treatment and to be treated with dignity, will be violated.” 170. In addition, the Inter-American Court has held that forced disappearance is a violation of that right for “prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment ... [and violate] the right of every detainee under Article 5 (1) and 5(2) to treatment respectful of 141 his dignity.” In the case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia the Court established that it is evident that the 142 victims of this practice have their right to humane treatment violated in all dimensions. 171. Of special relevance for the instant case, in the case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, the Inter-American Court indicated that: the abduction of the children and their separation from their parents or next of kin under the conditions described, as well as the fact that they were taken into the custody of military personnel during a military operation, harmed the mental, physical and moral integrity of the children, a right recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention, leading to feelings of loss, abandonment, 138 I/A Court H.R., Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 109. 139 I/A Court H.R., Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 112. 140 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 90. 141 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 156 and 187; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 323; and Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 171; and I/A Court H.R. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 58. 142 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 58.