definition contained in Article II of the ICFDP 173 and the case law of this Court, one of the characteristics of forced disappearance—as opposed to extrajudicial execution—is that the State refuses to recognize that the victim is in its custody or provide information in this regard, thereby creating uncertainty as to their whereabouts and whether they are alive or dead, causing intimidation and suppressing of rights. 174 Therefore, the Court finds that the elements of forced disappearance have been established. 142. Similarly, this Court has heard a number of cases in which the presence of greater or lesser evidence of the victims’ death did not change the classification of forced disappearance, because the classification is based on what the State agents did after killing the victims—that is, taking measures to conceal what had really happened or erasing all trace of the bodies to prevent them from being identified or their fate and whereabouts from being established. 175 The United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances agrees uses the same criteria (hereinafter, the “Working Group on Enforced Disappearances”). 176 143. Therefore, the Court concludes that in the case of Julien Cáceres, acts constituting forced disappearance were also carried out, and their harmful effects on the rights enshrined in Articles 7(1), 5(1), 5(2), 4(1), and 3 of the American Convention continue today, making the State internationally responsible. 144. It is likewise worth recalling that Julien Cáceres had refugee status. The Court highlights the special condition of vulnerability of asylees or refugees, which imposes specific obligations—in terms of protection—on the State in whose territory they are located. 177 145. According to this account, the Argentine State was required to guarantee the rights of those who had come to its territory fleeing political persecution, which is reinforced by the principle of non-refoulement, established as a cornerstone of the international protection of refugees or asylees and asylum seekers, 178 which extends to preventing the extradition, Article III of the ICFDP establishes that “forced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.” 174 Cf. Case of Anzulado Castro v. Peru, supra, par. 91, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, par. 200. 175 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, pars. 30(a) and (e), and 71; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, pars. 170, 173, and 200; Case of 19 Merchants v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, pars. 138 and 155; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, pars. 54(14) and 54(15); Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, pars. 114 and 162, Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, pars. 80, 81, 84 to 88, 92, and 94; Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, pars. 367 to 369, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, pars. 167 and 184 to 186. 176 Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General comment on the definition of enforced disappearance, January 10, 2008, UN Doc. A/HRC/7/2, par. 10: [A] detention followed by an extrajudicial execution [...] is an enforced disappearance proper, as long as such detention or deprivation of liberty was carried out by governmental agents of whatever branch or level, or by organized groups or private individuals acting on behalf of, or with the support, direct or indirect, consent or acquiescence of the Government, and, subsequent to the detention, or even after the execution was carried out, State officials refuse to disclose the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned or refuse to acknowledge the act having been perpetrated at all. 177 CONADEP described the inter-State coordination at the time as "a typically 'multinational' repressive apparatus," within the framework of which "activities of persecution were carried out [...] not limited by geographical borders, [...] in clear violation of international treaties and conventions […] on the right to asylum and political refuge.” Cf. Nunca Más. Informe de la Comisión Nacional sobre la Desaparición de Personas, Buenos Aires, Eudeba, 1984, Chapter K., “La coordinación represiva en Latinoamérica.” 178 Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, par. 151, and Advisory Opinion OC-25/18, supra, par. 179. 173 40