A. Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 107. The Commission argued that there is no controversy on whether Mr. González González was detained in December 1974. It claimed that the intervention of State officials can be implied since they did not deny the detention, but rather implicitly recognized it when they stated that Mr. González González had fled from prison, and from other indications.133 It added that “when his mother, Amalia González, went to look for him at the [military facility], she was told that he had escaped.” The Commission found that the authorities’ version of his escape and the lack of investigation into the events were means to cover up the fate or whereabouts of Mr. González González. It underscored that his disappearance had not ceased, since his whereabouts were still not known. 108. The Commission also indicated that there is no controversy about whether Mr. Tassino Asteazu was detained on July 19, 1977. It concluded that different indications existed that proved that State agents deprived him of his liberty.134 It added that State agents denied to his wife, Disnarda Flores, that he was detained and that his whereabouts continue to be unknown. It stated that, although the Report on the Ultimate Fate of 33 Citizens indicated that Mr. Tassino committed suicide, that was not certain and it was not determined by the proper criminal proceedings, in addition to the doubts on the location of his remains. The Commission claimed that the disappearance of Mr. Tassino Asteazu has not concluded and will continue until his whereabouts are known. 109. Therefore, the Commission concluded that Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazu are victims of acts of forced disappearance that continue to be committed because in both cases there exist the following elements: (a) the deprivation of liberty; (b) the intervention of State agents, and (c) the refusal to recognize their detention or to reveal their whereabouts. It, therefore, concluded that Uruguay is responsible, to the detriment of those two persons, for violating Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 7 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, as well as with Article I(a) of the IACFDP. 110. The representative alleged that Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazu are victims of forced disappearance. It claimed that, pursuant to the provisions of the instruments and the decisions of international bodies, including the Court’s case law, the following rights of those two persons were violated: personal liberty, life, recognition of juridical personality and personal integrity. The representative requested that the Court Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2020. Series C No. 400, para. 200 and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 20, 2021. Series C No. 436, (footnote 149). The principle of iura novit curia has been applied on several occasions by the Court: cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 163 and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 28, 2021. Series C No. 438, para. 149. The Commission indicated: (a) the context in which the events occurred, where there “existed a systematic practice of forced disappearances”; (b) the statements of the mother and others, as well as that of Elena Zaffaroni Rocco, the wife of Mr. González González, who was detained with him; (c) the “Report of the Investigative Commission on the Ultimate Fate of 33 Citizens, and (d) the mention of his case in the “Final Report on the Situation of Disappeared Persons and the Facts that Motivated that Situation.” 133 The Commission indicated: (a) the context in which the events occurred; (b) the statement of the wife of Mr. Tassino that he was detained by “three individuals dressed as civilians […] (who) identified themselves as members of the Joint Forces”; (c) the Report of the Peace Commission, which identified him as a victim of forced disappearance,” and (d) the mention of his name in the “Final Report on the Situation of Disappeared Persons and the Facts that Motivated that Situation.” 134 31