20 61. The Court has verified the international consolidation in the analysis of this crime, which constitutes a serious human rights violation given the particular gravity of the offenses it entails and the nature of the rights infringed.55 For this reason, it is a flagrant disavowal of the essential principles on which the Inter-American system on human rights is based56 and the prohibition thereof has attained the status of jus cogens.57 62. Pursuant to Article I, subsections a) and b), of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, States Parties undertake to not practice or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons under any circumstances and to punish those responsible under their jurisdiction. This is in accordance with the State’s obligation under in Article 1(1) of the American Convention to respect and guarantee rights, which, as has been established by this Court, can be fulfilled in different ways, according to the specific right the State must guarantee and of the specific needs of protection.58 This obligation implies the duty of States Parties to organize all the structures through which public power is exercised in such a way that they are capable of legally guaranteeing the free and full exercise of human rights.59 As part of that obligation, the State has the juridical duty to “[r]easonably prevent human rights violations and to seriously investigate, with the means Hungría, Communication No. 520/1992, 50th 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 period of sessions, CCPR/C/27/D/156/1983 (1986), March 26, 1986, para. 5.6. 53 Cf. Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, judgment of August 10, 2007 (declaring the multi-offensive and permanent nature of the crime of forced disappearance); Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico, Thesis: P./J. 87/2004, “Forced Disappearance of persons. The term for the statute of limitations to start to operate begins until the victim appears or his or her fate is stablished” (stating that the forced disappearance of persons are permanent crimes and that the statute of limitations shall start to be counted from the moment when its perpetration ceases); Case of Caravana, Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Chile, judgment of July 20, 1999; Case of withdrawal of privileges of Pinochet, Full Chamber of the Supreme Court of Chile, judgment August 8, 2000; Case of Sandoval, Court of Appeals of Santiago de Chile, judgment January 4, 2004 (all of the them stating that the crime of forced disappearance of persons is continuous, against humanity, non-aplicable of statutory limitations and not subject to amnesty); Case of Vitela et al., Federal Chamber of Criminal and Correctional Appeals of Argentina, judgment September 9, 1999 (stating that forced disappearances are continuous crimes and against humanity); Case of José Carlos Trujillo, Constitutional Court of Bolivia, judgment of November 12, 2001 (by the same token); Case of Castillo Páez, Constitutional Court of Peri, judgment of March 28, 2004 (stating, regarding that ordered by the Inter-American Court in that same case, that forced disappearance is a permanent crime until the whereabouts of the victim are stablished); Case of Juan Carlos Blanco and Case of Gavasso et al., Supreme Court of Uruguay, judgment October 18, 2002 and judgment April 17, 2002, respectively, (by the same token). 54 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 7, para. 83; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 140, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 85. 55 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 7, para. 84; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 59, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 86. 56 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para. 158; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 139, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 86. 57 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 7, para. 84; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 139, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 86. 58 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134. paras. 111 and 113; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 62, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 142. 59 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para. 166; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 62, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 142.