109. The State considered that the facts of the case were not in keeping with the supposed systematic or generalized assumptions of enforced disappearance that had been indicated, because at that time and in that area, few human rights violations were committed that could be attributed to State officials. In addition, the State observed that the supposed general scenario of violence in that area and at that time, which the Commission and the representatives sought to infer, by itself, would not allow the Court to attribute the State with international responsibility for the alleged enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. Lastly, the State indicated that the Commission had erroneously considered that the enforced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera and the State’s responsibility had been proved based on indications and presumptions, which may have been valid in other cases of enforced disappearance where there was a context of human rights violations, an absence of direct evidence, clandestine detentions, and concealment or denial of the facts by State officials, but this had not occurred in the instant case. 110. The State indicated that, both the existence of the record of release of May 1, 1991, regarding which the graphology experts verified that the signature had been handwritten by Jeremías Osorio Rivera and that the fingerprint could be one of his fingers, as well as the two radiograms and the statements, a contrario sensu to what the Commission had indicated, prove that, in this case, Jeremías Osorio Rivera was released on the morning of May 1, 1991. The State argued that, in this case, there is direct evidence of the release of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, so that it is not necessary to refer exclusively to presumptions and indications. Regarding the acquittals, the State added that, during the investigations conducted by the prosecutors and the judicial proceedings, these indications and presumptions had been discredited, and the facts were clarified, establishing that, although the detention and transfer of Jeremías Osorio Rivera had been proved, his enforced disappearance by the accused had not been substantiated. A.2. Considerations of the Court 111. In this case, a dispute exists between the parties as to whether the presumed enforced disappearance of Mr. Osorio Rivera occurred and, if so, whether it can be attributed to the State. On the one hand, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives argue that the participation of State agents in the supposed enforced disappearance of Mr. Osorio Rivera has been proved and, on the other hand, the State’s defense is based on the alleged existence of evidence establishing that the disappearance was not committed by State agents, so that it did not generate State responsibility. In view of the foregoing, the Court will now decide, first, whether what happened to Jeremías Osorio Rivera constitutes an enforced disappearance that can be attributed to the State. To this end, it will first establish the general framework based on which it will make its analysis, and then examine the disputed aspects relating to the elements that constitute enforced disappearance (infra paras. 117 to 159). It will then rule on the alleged violations of the obligations to respect and to ensure the human rights of Mr. Osorio Rivera (infra paras. 165 to 171). 112. The Court has verified the international agreement as regards the analysis of enforced disappearance, which constitutes a gross violation of human rights, given the particular significance of the violations that it entails and the nature of the rights harmed, so that it involves a blatant rejection of the essential principles that underlie the inter-American system, 204 and its prohibition has achieved the status of jus cogens. 205 204 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 158, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 96. 205 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 84, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 96. 41