50 Within the inter-American system, this definition appears in the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, which Guatemala ratified on July 27, 1999.308 Various international instruments and the case law of international bodies and courts concur on this definition.309 221. Thus, States have an obligation not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, no matter what the circumstance. Also, they must take reasonable measures to prevent the commission of this crime, conduct serious investigations when it happens to identify those responsible, impose the punishments called for, and to ensure adequate reparations for the victim.310 These obligations are expressly set forth in articles I(a) and I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 222. As for the rights violated, forced disappearance violates the right to personal liberty and places the victim at serious risk of irreparable harm to his or her rights to humane treatment and life. The Court has written that forced disappearance violates the right to humane treatment, as “prolonged isolation and being held incommunicado constitute, in themselves, forms of cruel and inhuman treatment harmful to the mental and moral integrity of the person and to the right of respect for the 311 inherent dignity of the human being.” The Court has also written that subjecting a person to State agents or private parties acting with their acquiescence or tolerance and that practice torture and assassination with impunity is itself a breach of the duty to prevent violations of the rights to life and physical integrity of the person, even if those facts cannot be proven in a given case.312 Series C No. 191, par. 55; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, par. 60. 308 It is worth noting that the Court has observed that the characteristics of a forced disappearance are inferred from the definition included in Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, its travaux préparatoires, its preamble and provisions. See: I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par. 140, citing the Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1987-1988, Chapter V.II. This crime “is permanent since it is not committed instantly but in a permanent and prolonged manner during the totality of the period during which the person remains disappeared.” (OEA/CPCAJP, Report of the Chair of the Working Group to Analyze the Draft Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearances of Persons, doc. OEA/Ser.G/CP/CAJP-925/93 rev.1, of January 25,1994, p. 10). 309 Within the inter-American system, see: I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par. 97; Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, par. 55; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, par. 60. Within the European system, see: ECHR, Kurt v. Turkey. Application No. 15/1997/799/1002. Judgment of 25 May 1998, pars. 124-128; Çakici v. Turkey, Application no. 23657/94. Judgment of 8 July 1999, paras. 104-106. Among the case law of domestic courts, see: Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Supreme Court of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Judgment of August 10, 2007; The Case to Strip Pinochet of Immunity, Supreme Court of Chile, en banc, Judgment of August 8, 2000; Case of Castillo Páez, Constitutional Court of Peru, Judgment of March 18, 2004, and others. 310 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 174; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, par. 62; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par.142. 311 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, par. 171; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, par. 85. 312 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, par. 59; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of