participation or acquiescence of its agents in the disappearance of Mr. González Medina has not been proved, and that it has been diligent in complying with its obligation to guarantee the rights of the said presumed victim, by means of the domestic investigations conducted in this case (supra paras. 83 to 85). 126. The Court has established that, in accordance with Article 1(1) of the Convention, States are obliged to respect and ensure the human rights recognized therein. 149 The States have the obligation not to practice or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons in any circumstances, and to punish those responsible for this within their own jurisdiction. 150 127. The said obligation of guarantee is derived from the general obligation of guarantee indicated in Article 1(1) of the Convention together with the substantive right protected in this treaty that must be safeguarded, protected or guaranteed, and entails the positive obligation of the State to adopt a series of conducts, depending on the specific substantive right that must be guaranteed and the specific situation in question. 151 The Court has established that, in order to comply with this obligation to guarantee effectively the rights to juridical personality, to life, and to personal integrity and liberty, the States must not only prevent, but also have the obligation to investigate any violations of them. Consequently, failure to comply with the obligation to guarantee the rights protected in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention by a diligent and effective investigation also results in the State’s international responsibility. 152 128. In its case law, the Court has established the continuing or permanent nature of forced disappearance, which encompasses multiple violations (supra para. 50). The Court’s case law has indicated as concurrent and constituent elements of forced disappearance: (a) the 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 whereabouts of the person concerned. 153 This characterization is consistent with other definitions contained in different international instruments,154 the case law of the European human rights system, 155 149 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, paras. 165 and 166, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 45. 150 Cf. mutatis mutandi, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 60; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 50, para. 142; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra note 49, para. 62; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 76, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 52, para. 98. 151 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, paras. 162, 166 and 176, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, paras. 173 and 174. 152 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, paras. 162, 166 and 176, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, paras. 173 and 174. 153 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 52, para. 95. 154 Cf. Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/177 of 20 December 2006; article 7.2.i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9, of July 17, 1998, and preamble of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, U.N. Doc. A/RES/47/133 of 12 February 1993. 155 In this regard, the following cases of enforced disappearance of persons can be consulted: ECHR, Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], No. 25781/94, paras. 132 to 134 and 147 to 148, 2001-IV, and ECHR, Varnava et al. v. Turkey, Nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90, paras. 111 to 113, 117 and 118, 133, 138 and 145, 10 January 2008. 42