32 is a crime against humanity involving a gross rejection of the essential principles on which the inter-American 114 system is based. 173. In its judgment in Goiburú v. Paraguay, international treatment of forced disappearance: 115 the Court offered the following review of the Although the international community adopted the first declaration and the first treaty using the term forced disappearance of persons only recently in 1992 and 1994, respectively, already in the 1970s, the issue as such was examined in international human rights law and was developed 116 within the framework of the United Nations system as of the 1980s. The inter-American regional system had frequently used this term to refer to this series of acts and violations as a 117 crime against humanity. It is even described as such by Article 7(1)(i) of the 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Court, when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed 118 against any civilian population. This description of the offense in reference has been reiterated in the text of Articles 5 and 8(1)(b) of the United Nations International Convention for the Protection 114 IACHR. Report 101/01. Case 10.247 and others. Extra-legal Executions and forced disappearance of persons. Peru. October 10, 2001. par. 178. 115 I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C, No. 153. par. 82. 116 I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C, No. 153. par. 82. Cf. The establishment of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, by Resolution 20 (XXXVI) of February 29, 1980, is a clear demonstration of general censure and repudiation of the practice of disappearances, which had already received world attention by the General Assembly (Resolution 33/173 of December 20, 1978), the Economic and Social Council (Resolution 1979/38 of May 10, 1979) and the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities (Resolution 5B (XXXII) of September 5, 1979). The reports of the Special Rapporteurs or representatives of the Commission on Human Rights show concern that the practice of disappearances be stopped, that the victims reappear, and that those responsible be punished (Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 4, par. 151. Likewise, the Godínez Cruz Case, par. 159, and Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C, No. 6, par. 146). The following resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly should also be cited: Resolution 3450 (XXX) of December 9, 1975, thirtieth session, on the question of missing persons in Cyprus as a result of the armed conflict; Resolution 32/128 of December 16, 1977, thirty-second session, proposing the establishment of a body to investigate the disappearances in Cyprus “impartially, effectively and speedily,” and Resolution 33/173 of December 20, 1978, thirty-third session, entitled “Disappeared Persons,” in which the General Assembly expressed its deep concern owing to “reports from various parts of the world relating to enforced or involuntary disappearances of persons as a result of excesses on the part of law enforcement or security authorities or similar organizations,” as well as its concern about “reports of difficulties in obtaining reliable information from competent authorities as to the circumstances of such persons,” and indicating that there was a “danger to the life, liberty and physical security of such persons arising from the persistent failure of these authorities or organizations to acknowledge that such persons are held in custody or otherwise to account for them.” 117 I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C, No. 153. par. 82. Cf. Resolution AG/RES. 666 (XIII-0/83) of November 18, 1983, and resolution AG/RES. 742 (XIV-0/84) of November 17, 1984, of the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. Also, cf. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Annual Report 1983-1984. Chapter IV, pars. 8, 9 and 12, and Chapter V, I.3, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.63 doc. 10 of September 28, 1984; Annual Report 1986-1987. Chapter V.II, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.71 Doc. 9 rev. 1 of September 22, 1987; Annual Report 1987-1988. Chapter IV, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.74 Doc. 10 rev. 1 of September 16, 1988; Annual Report 1990-1991. Chapter V, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.79, Doc. 12 rev. 1 of February 22, 1991, and Annual Report 1991. Chapter IV, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.81 Doc. 6 Rev. 1 of February 14, 1992. 118 I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C, No. 153. par. 82. Cf. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted on July 17, 1998, by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the establishment of an international criminal court, A/CONF.183/9.