B.2.e) Alleged violations of Articles 7, 5(1), 5(2), 4(1) and 3 of the American Convention due to the forced disappearance and subsequent execution of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas 365. The Court recalls that the concurring elements that constitute forced disappearance are: (a) the deprivation of liberty; (b) the direct intervention of State agents or their acquiescence, and (c) the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or the whereabouts of the person concerned (supra para. 226). The Court has determined that Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas left the Palace of Justice alive in the custody of State agents, following which he was not released. Consequently, the Court considers that this constituted the first and second element of the forced disappearance, in the sense that he was deprived of his liberty by State agents. 366. According to this Court’s case law, one of the characteristics of forced disappearance, contrary to extrajudicial execution, is the State’s refusal to acknowledge that the victim is in its custody and to provide information in this regard in order to create uncertainty about his or her whereabouts, life or death, to instill fear, and to eliminate rights. 559 367. In the specific case of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, the Court emphasizes that: (i) the State did not record that Mr. Urán Rojas had left the Palace alive and was subsequently detained, as in the case of those suspected of having collaborated with the M-19 (supra para. 248); (ii) the wife of Mr. Urán Rojas went to the Military Hospital on November 7 (following information that Carlos Horacio had left the Palace alive, but injured), and on asking about his whereabouts, “they left [her] alone in a room for about an hour and a half”; 560 (iii) the Vice Minister of Health at the time “inquired in all the city’s clinics and hospitals and could not find him”; 561 (iv) subsequently, the wife of Mr. Urán Rojas went to the Palace of Justice, but “there [she] met up with friends who told [her] that they had found nothing”; 562 (v) on November 8, 1985, she went to ask a general where he was, and showed the general a video where she had identified her husband; he did not return the video and there is no record in the case file that he made inquiries about the whereabouts of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas (supra para. 338), and (vi) the corpse of Carlos Horacio Urán was undressed and washed, probably to hide what really happened. This Court finds that all the above reveals that what happened to Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas also complies with the element relating to the refusal to provide information, characteristic of forced disappearance. 368. Based on the foregoing, it is possible to conclude that Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas was forcibly disappeared. In this regard, the Court recalls that the permanent nature of forced disappearance signifies that it continues until the whereabouts of the disappeared person is determined and his identity is established with certainty. 563 Thus, on November 8, 1985, the remains of Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas were identified and were returned to his family. Palace of Justice. However, the Court has insufficient evidence to determine what happened to Carlos Horacio’s body between his death and the delivery of his corpse to the Institute of Forensic Medicine. 559 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 91, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 156. 560 Cf. Testimony of Ana María Bidegain during the public hearing on the merits in this case. 561 Cf. Affidavit made by Teresa Morales de Gómez on May 11, 2012 (evidence file, folio 14691), and Testimony of Ana María Bidegain during the public hearing on the merits in this case. 562 Cf. Testimony of Ana María Bidegain during the public hearing on the merits in this case. 563 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 59, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 195. 125