73. The representatives generally agreed with the Commission's view. He argued that Mr. Flores Bedregal was arrested and forced to go down to the street, at which time state agents had effective control over the alleged victim; and that his death was never duly corroborated; and that the fact that, days after the assault, photographs of political leader Marcelo Quiroga have come to light with signs of torture, which make it possible to infer that Mr. Flores Bedregal could have been transferred to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and suffered a similar fate. In addition, he claimed that there is a persistent refusal to recognize forced disappearance. He alleged that those involved have not yet revealed what happened, and state authorities refuse to provide information and criticize the alleged victim's relatives for seeking out the truth, accusing them of acting with political biases. 74. The State reiterated the arguments presented in the ratione temporis objection and alleged that, in the instant case, there had been a deprivation of life and not forced disappearance. Therefore, the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment, and personal liberty provided in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention do not constitute a violation. To justify its position, it argued that the immediate death of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal has been fully proven, and this is why it cannot be considered that he was a victim of forced disappearance. With regard to the obligation to make a guarantee, it stated that it fulfilled its duty to investigate, since the facts relating to the disappearance of the remains of the alleged victim from the Clinical Hospital (Hospital de Clínicas) were included in procedure No. 6441/09. B. Considerations of the Court B.1. Forced disappearance of persons 75. As can be seen in the Court's consistent case law, the forced disappearance of persons constitutes a serious violation of human rights 102 consisting of three concurrent elements: (a) deprivation of liberty; (b) the direct intervention of state agents or their acquiescence, and (c) the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or the whereabouts of the person in question. 103 The Court has reiterated the permanent nature of the acts that constitute forced disappearance while the victims’ whereabouts remain unknown or until their remains are found, and the multiple violations of the rights recognized in the American Convention, giving States the correlative duty to investigate such acts and, eventually, punish those responsible, 104 pursuant to the obligations derived from that Convention and, in particular, from articles I,II and III of the ICFDP, the latter of which expressly establishes that the crime of forced disappearance will be considered as continuous or permanent until the fate or whereabouts of the victim are determined. The characterization of forced disappearance as a permanent and multiple violation of human rights 105 is consistent with the Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 114, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 15, 2021. Series C No. 444, para. 112. 103 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 136, para. 97, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 452, para. 119. 102 Cf. inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 155-157, and Case of the Village of Los Josefinos Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 3, 2021. Series C No. 442, para. 69. 104 105 Cf. Case of Maidanik et al. v. Paraguay, supra, paras. 113 and 114. This characterization derives not only from the definition in Article III of the ICCPF, but also from different international instruments. See, UN, Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced disappearance, United Nations General Assembly. Resolution 47/133,18 December 1992, art. 1, 4 and 17, and UN. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 20, 2006, arts. 2 and 8. 24