29 110. Similarly, other international instruments refer to the following coexisting and constituent elements of this violation: (a) deprivation of liberty (b) intervention of State agents, at least indirectly by their concurrence, and (c) refusal to acknowledge the detention and reveal the fate or the whereabouts of the person involved.67 These elements can also be found in the definition of forced disappearance of persons established in Article 2 of the abovementioned United Nations International Convention on this matter,68 and also in the definition found in Article 7 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court,69 an instrument that Panama ratified on March 21, 2002. 111. International case law also reflects this understanding,70 together with several Constitutional Courts of the States of the Americas.71 For example, the National Criminal Chamber of Peru has declared that “the expression ‘forced disappearance of persons’ is merely the nomen iuris for the systematic violation of a multiplicity of human rights. […]Various stages in the practice of the disappearance of persons can be distinguished; they include: the selection of the victim, the detention, the holding in a place of detention, the eventual transfer to another place of detention, and the interrogation, torture, and processing of the information received. In many cases, the victim dies and his remains are hidden.”72 67 Cf. United Nations Economic and Social Council. Report of the Working Group on Forced or Involuntary Disappearances. General Comments on Article 4 of the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Forced disappearance of January 15, 1996 (E/CN. 4/1996/38), para. 55. 68 Cf. Article 2 “[f]or the purposes of this Convention, ‘forced disappearance’ is considered to be the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.” 69 Cf. Article 7(i) of the Statute of the International Criminal Court establishes that: “‘Forced disappearance of persons’ means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of liberty or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.” 70 Cf. Kurt v. Turkey, App. No. 24276/94, Eur. Ct. H.R. (1998); Cakici v. Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R. (1999); Ertak v. Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2000); Timurtas v. Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2000); Tas v. Turkey, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2000); European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus v. Turkey, judgment of 10 May 2001, Application No. 25781/94, paras. 136, 150 and 158; United Nations Human Rights Committee, Ivan Somers v. Hungary, Communication No. 566/1993, fifty-seventh session, CCPR/C/57/D/566/1993 (1996), 23 July 1996, para. 6.3; E. and A.K. v. Hungary, Communication No. 520/1992, fiftieth session, CCPR/C/50/D/520/1992 (1994), 5 May 1994, para. 6(4), and Solorzano v. Venezuela, Communication No. 156/1983, twenty-seventh session, CCPR/C/27/D/156/1983, 26 March 1986, para. 5(6). 71 Cf. Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Supreme Court of Justice of the Venezuelan Bolivarian Republic, judgment of August 10, 2007 (declaring the offense of forced disappearance to be a multiple offense of a permanent nature); Case of Jesús Piedra de Ibarra, Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, judgment of November 5, 2003 (stating that forced disappearances are continuing offenses and that the statute of limitations should be calculated from the time the remains are found); Case of Caravana, Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Chile, judgment of July 20, 1999; Case of the withdrawal of immunity from Pinochet, Plenary of the Supreme Court of Chile, judgment of August 8, 2000; Case of Sandoval, Court of Appeal of Santiago, Chile, judgment of January 4, 2004 (all of them stating that the offense of forced disappearance is continuing, a crime against humanity, not subject to a statute of limitations or amnesty); Case of Vitela et al., Federal Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of Argentina, judgment of September 9, 1999 (stating that forced disappearances are continuing offenses and crimes against humanity); Case of José Carlos Trujillo, Constitutional Court of Bolivia, judgment of November 12, 2001 (similarly); Case of Castillo Páez, Constitutional Court of Perú, judgment of March 18, 2004, (stating that, as a result of the requirement of the Inter-American Court in this case, forced disappearance is a permanent offense until the victim’s whereabouts have been established); Case of Juan Carlos Blanco and Case of Gavasso et al., Supreme Court of Uruguay, judgments of October 18, 2002, and April 17, 2002, respectively (similarly). 72 Cf. National Criminal Chamber of Perú, judgment of March 20, 2006, regarding the offense against the liberty-abduction of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez. In this case, when almost 16 years had elapsed since the facts occurred and almost four since the start of the criminal proceedings against the perpetrators, the National Criminal Chamber of Perú handed down a conviction for the offense of forced disappearance, based on the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 1997. Similarly, the judgment of August 10, 2007, of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in the case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez.