120. Forced disappearance places the victim in a state of complete defenselessness.141 It is a complex, multiple violation, because of its many strands merging toward one objective that jointly and continuously infringe various legal rights protected by the American Convention, especially those safeguarded by the rights to juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity and to personal liberty, set out in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention. 142 An act of forced disappearance can also constitute a violation of other rights. A case in point is when its purpose is to prevent the legitimate exercise of a right protected in the Convention other than those referred to above. In particular, when the violation is linked to the exercise of freedom of association or political rights, it can also strike fear into the organizations, reducing their capacity to defend their interests as a group, which can be aggravated in contexts of impunity. 143 Similarly, depending on the circumstances of the case and given the uncertainty it creates as to the fate of the disappeared person, an act of forced disappearance can have profound effects on family members (infra para. 173). Furthermore, if a State practices, tolerates or allows an act of forced disappearance, it is failing to comply with Article I. a) of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, which prohibits such conduct. 121. Forced disappearance is characterized by an attempt to suppress all information about the kidnapping, whereabouts and fate of the victims. 144 This characteristic may result in the difficulty or impossibility of obtaining direct evidence concerning the act of forced disappearance. However, this does not, of itself, prevent the Court from determining, if applicable, the responsibility of the State. 122. In this regard, it should be borne in mind that the Court, in order to establish a State’s responsibility, does not need to establish the material attribution of an act to the State beyond any reasonable doubt, but to be convinced that conduct attributable to the State that entails the breach of an international obligation and impacts human rights has been verified. 145 To this end, the State cannot rely on the defense that the complainant has failed to present evidence when it cannot be obtained without the State’s cooperation.146 Moreover, given the nature of forced disappearance, which is committed with the intention of concealing what has occurred, circumstantial evidence, indicia, and presumptions of the commission of a crime are especially important, inasmuch as, taken as a whole, they make it possible to draw conclusions consistent with the facts.147 As part of such a combination of evidence, and not in isolation, the confirmation of a context in which forced disappearances are known to have occurred may constitute an Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 59, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 115. 142 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 150, 155 to 158, 186 and 187, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 114. It should be noted that the Court has ruled, in relation to the impact on personal integrity in cases of forced disappearance, that “prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment and, therefore, violate Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention” (Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 156 and 187, and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360, para. 172). 143 Cf., also with respect to freedom of association, and mutatis mutandi with regard to political rights, Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, paras. 66 to 79, and Case of Isaza Uribe et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 145. 144 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, supra, para. 131, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 169. 145 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 128 to 135 and 173, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 168. 146 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 135, and Case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay. Merits. Judgment of May 13, 2019. Series C No. 377, para. 95. In this regard, the State may not use the failure to carry out domestic actions, nor the shortcomings or lack of results of such actions, to its advantage; the fact that domestic investigations have not controverted the evidence of the State’s participation in the events is a pertinent element that gives weight to the evidence (cf., in this regard, Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, paragraph 96, and Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017. Series C No. 342, para. 149). 147 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 130 and 131, and case of Arrom Suhurt et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 95. 141 33