merely the beginning of the constitution of a complex violation that is prolonged over time until the victim’s fate and whereabouts are known. The analysis of a possible forced disappearance should not focus in an isolated, divided and fragmented manner only on the detention, or the possible torture, or the risk of loss of life, but rather on all the facts that are present in the case being considered by the Court, taking into account the Court’s case law when interpreting the American Convention. 215 176. Regarding Article 7 of the American Convention, the Court has reiterated that any restriction of the right to personal liberty must only occur for the reasons and under the conditions previously established by the Constitution or by laws enacted in keeping with the Constitution (substantive aspect), and also, strictly subject to the procedures objectively defined in it (formal aspect). 216 177. Regarding the right to personal liberty and persons deprived of liberty, the Court has recognized that the State is in a special position as guarantor of the rights of those detained, 217 so that the deprivation of liberty in legally-recognized centers and the existence of records of detainees constitute fundamental safeguards, inter alia, against forced disappearance. 218 178. Based on Article 7 of the American Convention, the Court has considered that any detention, irrespective of the reason or duration, must be duly recorded in the pertinent document indicating clearly, at least, the reasons for the arrest, who made it, the date and time of arrest, and the date and time of release, as well as proof that the competent judge was informed, in order to provide protection against any illegal or arbitrary interference with physical liberty. 219 Otherwise, the rights established in Article 7(1) and 7(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument are violated. 220 179. The deprivation of liberty which initiates a forced disappearance, whatever the form it takes, is contrary to Article 7 of the American Convention. In the instant case, the Court has verified that Narciso González Medina was detained on May 26, 1994, and, that night and the days following his disappearance, he was in the State’s custody (supra para. 164), which entailed a violation of his liberty in the most extensive sense of Article 7(1) of the Convention; also that, 17 years and 9 months after his detention, his whereabouts remain unknown. 180. Regarding Article 5 of the American Convention, this Court has stated that forced disappearance violates the right to humane treatment, because “the mere fact of prolonged isolation and compulsory solitary confinement, represents cruel and inhuman treatment […] 215 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 59, para. 112, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 84. 216 Cf. Case of Gangaram Panday v. Suriname. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 47, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, supra note 67, paras. 57 and 59. 217 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Merits, supra note 56, para. 60, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, supra note 67, para. 84. 218 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 150, para. 63, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 52, para. 99. 219 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 53, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 52, para. 76. 220 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador, supra note 219, para. 54, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 52, para. 76. 59