4 15. Such indifference as to the form of the deprivation of freedom has provided the substance for the final draft of Article 2 for a convention on forced disappearance, adopted by the United Nations ad hoc Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on September 23, 2005. The related text lists, but ultimately without limitation, certain specific ways in which deprivation of freedom may occur, in its largest meaning: “arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty.” 16. The foregoing considerations do not completely cover the description of the conduct contained in the Inter-American Convention. This incorporates other necessary references to classify the conduct of the person responsible for instances of forced disappearance: a) absence of information on that deprivation of freedom; b) refusal to acknowledge that deprivation or (in the alternative); c) refusal to give information on the whereabouts of that person. In the first case, there is a failure to inform; in the second and third cases, information is refused. The description of the illegal act would be altered if either of these characteristics of the conduct was eliminated, my comments contained in paragraph 28 of this Opinion notwithstanding. 17. Other international systems include expressions that are partially coincidental with the one set forth in the Inter-American Convention. The Statute of the ICC refers to a “refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of [the] person[s]" arrested, detained or abducted. The United Nations project mentions: “refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom” or “to give information on the whereabouts of that person.” 18. B) References to the persons involved: i) there are no specific references to the person affected by the conduct: one or more persons; i.e. any number of individuals, irrespective of any specific characteristic, and ii) there are references as to the individual responsible for the conduct: he or she may be an agent of the State; i.e. a person holding or performing a public position, rank, commission or activity, or (in the alternative), “persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the State.” In terms of the legal definition, the punishable conduct may bring together individuals from both categories or individuals from only one of these categories. In both cases, forced disappearance will be deemed to have occurred. Thus, the provisions that set forth that this offense can only be committed by public servants, without taking into account all other categories of persons possibly responsible for that conduct, amounts to failure to comply with the international commitment to establish a specific crime definition. 19. The Statute of the International Criminal Court refers to the arrest, detention or abduction of persons “by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization.” Indeed, the wording is not entirely adequate. The United Nations project advances along the path followed by the Inter-American Convention: “agents of the state or […] persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state.” 20. C) The definition contained in Article II of the 1994 Convention includes another expression worth examining: that those circumstances; i.e. the conduct described attributable to certain individuals, “thereby imped[e] his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.” It is necessary to examine the scope of this phrase which, if analyzed loosely, may result in the absolute impunity of forced disappearance.