or tolerated by the State. In brief, it is a crime against humanity involving a gross rejection of the essential principles on which the inter-American system is based.163 65. Forced disappearance of persons comprises the following concurrent, basic elements: (1) deprivation of liberty; (2) direct involvement of governmental officials or acquiescence thereof; and (3) refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or to disclose the fate and whereabouts of the person concerned.164 Those requirements are also recognized under the inter-American system in the IACFDP, which Guatemala ratified on July 27, 1999. 165 Bearing in mind those concurrent elements, when examining an alleged forced disappearance “the deprivation of liberty of the individual must be understood merely as the beginning of the constitution of a complex violation that is prolonged over time until the fate and whereabouts of the victim are established.”166 66. As the Court has stated, “faced with the particular gravity of such offenses and the nature of the rights harmed, the prohibition of the forced disappearance of persons and the corresponding obligation to investigate and punish those responsible has attained the status of jus cogens.”167 67. As for the rights violated, forced disappearance violates the right to personal liberty and places the victim at serious risk of irreparable harm to his or her rights to humane treatment and life. Indeed, the Court has found that “forced disappearance violates the right to humane treatment since ‘the mere subjection of an individual to prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication is in itself cruel and inhuman treatment.’”168 The Court has also written that subjecting a person to repressive State bodies, State agents, or private parties acting with their acquiescence or tolerance and that practice torture and assassination with impunity is itself a breach of the duty to prevent violations of the rights to life and physical integrity of the person, even if those facts cannot be proven in a given case.169 68. The Court has also found that in cases of forced disappearance of persons, given the multiple and complex nature of this grave violation of human rights, its execution can include the specific infringement of the right to the acknowledgment of juridical personality. 170 This is because, apart from the fact that the disappeared person can no longer exercise and enjoy other rights, their disappearance seeks “not only one of the most serious forms of removing a person from every sphere of the legal system, but also to deny their very existence and leave them in a type of limbo or indeterminate legal situation in the eyes of society, the State, and even the international community.”171 69. As the established facts show, at least three people were disappeared between April 29 and 30, 1982, in Los Josefinos. According to the testimony that exists, they were all last seen in the custody of State security I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 22, 2006, Series C. No. 153 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Goiburú et al. Judgment”), par. 82. See also, inter alia, I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C. No. 4 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment”), pars. 149-158; I/A Court H.R., Case of Blake v. Guatemala, Merits, Judgment of January 24, 1998, Series C. No. 36 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Blake Judgment”), par. 65; I/A Court H.R., Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of October 14, 2014, Series C. No. 285 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Rochac Hernández et al. Judgment"), par. 94; I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 22, 2005, Series C. No. 136 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Gómez Palomino Judgment"), par. 92; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of November 23, 2004, Series C. No. 118, pars. 100-105. 164 See, inter alia, I/A Court H.R., Rochac Hernández et al. Judgment, par. 95; and I/A Court H.R., Gómez Palomino Judgment, par. 92. 165 On this point, it should be mentioned that the Court has held that the characteristics of forced disappearance may be inferred from the definition contained in Article III of IACFDP, its travaux préparatoires and its preamble and standards. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 23, 2009, Series C. No. 209 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Radilla Pacheco Judgment"), par. 140. 166 I/A Court H.R., Chitay Nech Judgment, par. 89. 167 I/A Court H.R., Goiburú et al. Judgment, par. 84. 168 I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Anzualdo Castro Judgment”), par. 85; I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 156. 169 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ticona Estrada and others v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Ticona Estrada Judgment”), par. 59; I/A Court H.R., Anzualdo Castro Judgment, par. 85; I/A Court H.R., Radilla Pacheco Judgment, par. 153. 170 I/A Court H.R., Anzualdo Castro Judgment, pars. 91-92, 101; I/A Court H.R., Radilla Pacheco Judgment, par. 157. 171 I/A Court H.R., Anzualdo Castro Judgment, par. 90. 163 19