declare that the State violated Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 7 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article (1) thereof, as well as Article I(a) of the IACFDP. 111. The State admitted that “coinciding and relevant evidence confirms the complaint regarding the forced disappearances” of Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazú.135 B. Considerations of the Court B.1 General considerations on the forced disappearance of persons 112. The Court’s consistent case law holds that the forced disappearance of persons is a serious violation of human rights136 that is comprised 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 whereabouts of the affected person.137 113. The Court, in the examination of a prior case involving Uruguay, stated that forced disappearances are a continuing or permanent act that extends until the whereabouts of the victims are known or until their remains have been found and while their identity has not been clearly ascertained.138 114. The Court has also pointed out the manifold nature of forced disappearance with respect to the rights recognized in the American Convention. 139 It is a complex and The State explained that such confirmations were given by the Secretariat of Human Rights for the Recent Past from the investigations by the Peace Commission. It indicated that, with respect to both victims, “on August 2, 20006, it issued a certificate of absence for forced disappearance, pursuant to Law 17,894 of September 14, 2005.” 135 136 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 84; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 64 and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, paras. 173, 176 and 178. Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97; Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 141 and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 62. Articles II and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons define forced disappearance as follows: 137 Depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or group of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence of the state, followed by the absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees. […] This offense shall be considered continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined. Cf., Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, paras. 66 to 73. See also, among others: Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 155 to 157; 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 Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, para. 62. 138 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 155 to 157 and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, para. 62. 139 32