25 abandonment of the essential principles in which the Inter-American System is founded,86 and which prohibition has reached the character of jus cogens.87 87. In that regard, the analysis of forced disappearance must cover the totality of the group of facts that are presented to be considered by the Tribunal in the present case.88 Only in this manner, the legal analysis of forced disappearance is consistent with the complex violation of human rights that it entails,89 with its continuous or permanent character, and with the necessity of considering the context in which the facts took place, in order to analyze its prolonged effects over time and to focus on its consequences in a comprehensive manner.90 88. In consideration of the foregoing, in the present case, although the facts that make up the beginning of the forced disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech occurred in 1981, prior to the adjudicatory jurisdiction of this Court, such facts are prolonged to this day due to their continuous or permanent character. A. Forced Disappearance: Articles 7, 5, 4, and 3 (Rights to Personal Liberty, Humane Treatment [Personal Integrity] and Juridical Personality) of the American Convention 89. While analyzing an alleged forced disappearance, it must be taken into account that the deprivation of liberty of the individual shall be understood as the beginning of the configuration of a complex violation that is prolonged in time until the situation and the whereabouts of the alleged victim are known. The analysis of a possible forced disappearance should not focus on the detention, or the possible torture, or the risk of losing a life, in an isolated, divided, and fragmented manner, instead the focus shall be on the group of facts that are presented in the case under consideration before the Court, taking into account the Jurisprudence of the Tribunal when interpreting the American Convention, as well as ICFDP for those States that have ratified it.91 90. Regarding Article 7 of the American Convention, the court has reiterated that any restriction to the right of personal liberty shall only take place for the causes and in the conditions established beforehand by the Political Constitutions, or by the laws issued American Convention on Human Rights, in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. 86 Cf. Case of las Hermanas Serrano Cruz V. El Salvador. Preliminary Exceptions, supra note 76, paras. 100 a 106; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 22 of September of 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 59, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 139. 87 Cf. Case Goiburú et. al. V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 22 of September of 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 84; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 59, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. Méxco, supra note 12, para. 139. 88 Cf. Case Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 76, para. 112; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 59, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 146. 89 Cf. Case Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 32, para. 185; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 59, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 122. 90 Cf. Case Goiburú et. al. V. Paraguay, supra note 87, para. 85; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 59, and Case Radilla Pacheco, supra note 12, para. 122. 91 Cf. Case Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 76, para. 112; Case Ticona Estrada et. al. V. Bolivia, supra note 84, para. 56, and Case Anzualdo Castro V. México, supra note 86, para. 67.