4 11. That the forced disappearance constitutes a continuous or permanent violation of several rights – and it would be the same if it dealt with only one right or liberty – does not seem to generate, at the moment, further controversies. If we follow the doctrine of the continuous crime (taking into account the healthy practice, required by the reason, of observing the whole historical and current Law at the time of solving particular cases and we do not intend unveiling law and concepts in each judgment we sign) we will come to the conclusion that the violence of a legal interest covered by a right or a freedom continues in time as long as the criminal conduct of such violation exists (in other words, so long as the described behavior continues in time). It is not about that the consequence or effect of such behavior still exists- obvious existence, as noted in the case of murder- but that this behavior continues in time without interruption so that it keeps such violation alive, valid, and present. 12. There is no doubt either, at the present, about the autonomy of the precept of disappearance, once the various concurrent elements that make it up are present (hence, deprivation of liberty, refusal to acknowledge it and to disclose the whereabouts of the victim). These elements entail an infringement of specific rights, which involve the general harm by which the disappearance is characterized. This is the way in which, together with several elements, the concept and description of the forced disappearance, under the terms of the conventions describing it, are formed. Certainly, there may be other violations also autonomous that generate a set of violations committed by one or several acts, without loosing the relevance that they naturally entail and merge into one. 13. Instead, it does not seem to be so established, and it is certainly not, the determination of the content that we give to the expressions multiple violation, plural violation, pluri-offensive fact and other similar terms. What rights does this precept affect? Which are the concepts of violation that the forced disappearance entails? Do we have to add definitions of violation, in spite of the descriptions contained in an international convention – that we are applying- and that are inherent to the nature of the facts under study and classification? Has the interpreter a kind of freedom of "imagination" to include or exclude elements discretionally, appealing to the needs of prevention and punishment that may be dealt with, perfectly, without sacrificing the rule and logic and that may go beyond the nature of the facts?