personality, 122 to life, 123 to personal integrity, 124 and to personal liberty, 125 in relation to the obligation to respect rights 126 established in the American Convention, as well as of Articles I 127 and II 128 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García. 95. In its case law since 1988, 129 the Court has established the permanent or continuing nature of the forced disappearance of persons, 130 which has been recognized repeatedly by international human rights law. 131 Furthermore, this Court’s case law has been a precursor in the consolidation of a comprehensive perspective of the multiple violations of the rights affected and the permanent nature of the forced disappearance of persons, 132 in which the act of disappearance and its execution start with the deprivation of liberty of the person and 122 Article 3 of the American Convention establishes that: “[e]very person has the right to recognition as a person before the law”. 123 Article 4(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “[e]very person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 124 The pertinent part of Article 5 of the American Convention establishes that: “1. Every person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected. 2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment or treatment. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” 125 Article 7(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “[e]very person has the right to personal liberty and security.” 126 Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes that: “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.”. 127 Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons establishes: “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake: (a) Not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, even in states of emergency or suspension of individual guarantees; (b) To punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories; (c) To cooperate with one another in helping to prevent, punish, and eliminate the forced disappearance of persons, and (d) To take legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other measures necessary to comply with the commitments undertaken in this Convention.” 128 Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons establishes: “[f]or the purposes of this Convention, forced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an 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.” 129 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 155, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 112. 130 According to Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance “[t]his offense shall be deemed continuous or permanent as long as the fate or whereabouts of the victim has not been determined”. 131 In the sphere of international human rights law, an operational definition of the phenomenon was developed by the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances in the 1980s. The conceptual elements established by this Working Group were taken up later in the definitions of diverse international instruments. Cf. Case of Chitay et al v. Guatemala, supra, para. 82, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 112. See also the Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Commission on Human Rights, 37th session, UN Doc E/CN.4/1435, of 22 January 1981, para. 4, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Commission on Human Rights, 39th session, UN Doc E/CN.4/1983/14 of 21 January 1983, paras. 130 to 132, and Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, Commission on Human Rights, Report on the visit to Sri Lanka by three members of the Working Group, 7 to 18 October 1991, E/CN.4/1992/18/Add.1 of 5 January 1992. 132 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 155 to 157, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 112. 34