the Palace of Justice”. It stressed that the fact that her remains were not returned until 2001 was due “to the unjustified delay in the investigations.” A.2) General considerations of the Court 225. Owing to the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility in relation to Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera and Irma Franco Pineda, there is no dispute between the parties concerning the forced disappearance of these persons. In addition, the State acknowledged its responsibility by omission for failing to elucidate the events and to discover the whereabouts of the other presumed victims, which it attributed to the errors committed in the processing of the scene of the events and in the identification of the mortal remains, as well as to the unjustified delay in the investigations. Consequently, the State acknowledged that the whereabouts of the presumed disappeared victims remains unknown, with the exception of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres. However, it expressly clarified that this acknowledgement “does not imply accepting that the wrongful act of forced disappearance of persons occurred with regard to these nine victims” (supra para. 21.b.ii). 226. In this regard, the Court recalls that the disappearance of a person, because their whereabouts are unknown, is not the same as an enforced disappearance. 314 The enforced disappearance of persons is a violation of human rights composed of three concurring elements: (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. 315 In this case, there is no dispute that the presumed disappeared victims were in the Palace of Justice and, with the exception of Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, following the taking and retaking of the building, their whereabouts remain unknown so that they are disappeared according to the general meaning of the word. This Court must determine whether this physical disappearance of the presumed victims was also due to an enforced disappearance, because they left the Palace of Justice alive in the custody of State agents who continue to deny their detention, following which their fate is unknown. 227. Based on the foregoing, the Court will determine what happened to Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, Gloria Anzola de Lanao and Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres. Once it has established the facts in relation to each of them, it will analyze, as pertinent, the alleged violations of the rights to recognition of juridical personality, 316 life, 317 314 The Superior Court of Bogota indicated that the fact that a person is disappeared “signifies that there is no news of them, even though there is evidence, and it is accepted, that he or she was alive in the Palace when the assault by the subversives began. They could have died there and their corpse was not identified, even if it was in a recognizable condition; perhaps they were not identified because this was not possible owing to the degradation caused by the fire, or by error or improper handling of the remains; they could even have left the building alive and their exit was not registered. Simply, nothing is known about them, except that they were alive in that place at the onset.” Cf. Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folio 38278). See also: Commission on Human Rights, Report submitted by Mr. Manfred Nowak, expert member of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, 4 March 1996, E/CN.4/1996/36, para. 83, and International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Guiding Principles, Model Law on the Missing, article 2. Available at https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/missing-model-law-010907.htm. 315 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97, 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. 113. 316 Article 3 of the American Convention establishes that: “[e]very person has the right to recognition as a person before the law.” 317 Article 4(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “[e]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 75