highlight the serious nature of the facts of the case. 225 199. In this regard, the Court recalls that its case law includes cases in which the failure to codify or apply the autonomous criminal offense of forced disappearance of persons at the domestic level did not hinder the processes launched to investigate, prosecute, and punish the facts. However, the application of different criminal offenses must always be consistent with the seriousness of the facts and with the complex human rights violation alleged. 226 200. In this regard, given the allegation of State responsibility for “delays" in codifying the crime of forced disappearance, it should be recalled that in the case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, in which, as of the date of submission before this jurisdiction, the State had not yet codified the specific criminal offense in its criminal legislation, the Court reiterated that it is not within its jurisdiction to rule in the abstract, as long as it is not alleged that a failure to codify or apply the criminal offense of forced disappearance of persons constituted an impediment or obstacle to investigating the facts in the specific case. 227 201. Therefore, what must be analyzed is whether the failure to prosecute the autonomous criminal offense of forced disappearance in domestic proceedings affected or hindered the investigation and clarification of the facts. In this regard, with respect to the crimes committed to the detriment of Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite and her children, Anatole and Victoria, the Court notes that alternate criminal offenses were applied that, taken together, denoted the seriousness of what happened. Indeed, as established (supra paras. 102 to 104, 107, 109 and 170 to 174), the elements that formed part of the charges and subsequent convictions involving each of the injured persons, as well as their legal classification, pointed to the illegal deprivation of their liberty, submission to acts of torture and inhumane conditions, the direct intervention of State agents, and the violence involved in the commission of the criminal acts. 202. Regarding the facts that harmed Anatole and Victoria, the judicial authorities also took into account "the abductions, retentions and concealments" of which they were victims, as well as the violation of the right to recognition of their juridical personality, which suffered harm in the framework of the multi-offense nature of the forced disappearance of persons. At the same time, they repudiated that, as part of the “general plan of annihilation”, they “had suppressed, hidden, or made uncertain their identities.” 228 In the judgment in the case known as the "Systematic plan for the appropriation of children," the judges indicated that the proven facts constituted cases of forced disappearance of persons, given that "international custom" had already established that the crime "constituted a serious violation of human rights”. Cf. Judgment issued by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 on September 17, 2012, cases No. 1351, 1499, 1604, 1584, 1730, and 1772 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 18 to the answering brief, folio 14804). 226 In the case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, the Court found that, from the beginning of the respective criminal proceedings at the domestic level, “Bolivian [criminal] legislation provided criminal rules leading to the effective observance of the guarantees established in the [American] Convention with respect to the individual rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty,” and it therefore conclude that “in the instant case, it [had] not been proven that the lack of legal definition of the autonomous crime of forced disappearance [had] hindered the effective development of the criminal procedure.” Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, par. 104. In the case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, the Court noted that “The disparity in the categorization of the facts at the domestic and international level was reflected in the criminal proceedings,” in which convictions had been handed down “for offenses such as abduction, illegal deprivation of liberty, abuse of authority, association or conspiracy to commit a crime, injuries, coercion or threats and homicide.” However, the Court “recognizes that the illegal and arbitrary detention, torture and forced disappearance of the victims have not remained in total impunity through the application of other categories of crime.” Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, par. 92. For its part, in the case of Vereda la Esperanza v. Colombia, the Court indicated that “regardless of the nomen iuris, [in the domestic proceedings], the investigation [had been] conducted to determining the factual circumstances and […] elements related to the crime of forced disappearance.” Cf. Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2017. Series C No. 341, par. 207. 227 Cf. Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, par. 149. See also, Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. Ecuador, supra, par. 81. 228 Cf. Judgment issued by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 6 on September 17, 2012, cases No. 1351, 1499, 225 53