21 60. Upon the ratification of the ICFDP, as with the case of Peru, State Parties undertake, in light of Article I(a) of said treaty, not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees. The need to integrally consider the phenomenon of forced disappearance as an autonomous and continuous or permanent crime, with their multiple aspects intricately interrelated and related violations, can be deduced not only from the typical definition of Article III of the ICFDP,60 the travaux préparatoires for this instrument61, its preamble and set of rules, but from other definitions contained in different international instruments,62 that establish as concurring and constituting elements of the crime of forced disappearance: a) deprivation of liberty; b) direct involvement of governmental officials or by acquiescence, and c) refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty and to disclose the fate and whereabouts of the person concerned.63 61. The case- law of the organs of the United Nations,64 as well as the case –law of the European Human Rights System,65 agrees with this characterization, and also the several Constitutional Courts of the American States.66 By the same token, the national Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 91; and Case of La Cantuta V. Perú, supra note 58, para. 157. 60 The ICFDP provides 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 guarantee[;] this offense shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined.” 61 Cf. Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1987-1988, Chapter V.II. This offense “will be considered continuing or permanent as long as the whereabouts or the fate of the victim has not been established.” (OEA/CP-CAJP, Report of the President of the Working Group responsible for examining the draft Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, doc. OEA/Ser.G/CP/CAJP-925/93 rev.1, of January 25, 1994, p. 10). 62 Cf. United Nations Economic and Social Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General Observations to Article 4 of the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance, of January 15, 1996. (E/CN. 4/1996/38), para. 55 and Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All People from Enforced Disappearance. 63 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C Nº. 136, para. 97; and Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 55; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 58, para. 110. 64 Cf. United States Human Rights Committee, case of Ivan Somers v. Hungary, Communication No. 566/1993, 57º period of sessions, CCPR/C/57/D/566/1993 (1996), July 23, 1996, para. 6.3; case of E. and A.K. v. Hungary, Communication No. 520/1992, 50º period of sessions, CCPR/C/50/D/520/1992 (1994), May 5, 1994, para. 6.4, and case of Solorzano v. Venezuela, Communication No. 156/1983, 27th session, CCPR/C/27/D/156/1983 (1986), March 26, 1986, para. 5.6. 65 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); Cyprus v. Turkey, Application No. 25781/94, Eur. Ct. H.R. (2001), para. 136, 150 and 158. 66 Cf. Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Supreme Tribunal of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, judgment of August 10, 2007 (which declare the multiple-offensive and permanent nature of the crime of forced disappearance); Case of Jesús Piedra Ibarra, Supreme Court of Justice of Mexico, Judgment of November 5, 2003 (sustained that forced disappearances are continuous crimes and the statutory limits must run as of the finding of the mortal remains); Case of Caravana, Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Chile, Judgment of July 20, 1999; Case of the withdrawal of privileges of Pinochet, Plenum of the Supreme Court of Chile, judgment of August 8, 2000; Case of Sandoval,