41 to life, personal integrity, personal liberty and recognition of juridical personality, since the Court cannot hear facts prior to the date on which Guatemala recognized its jurisdiction. On the other hand, it cited the Case of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez to argue that “the arbitrary deprivation of life suppresses the human person and, therefore, it is not appropriate, in this circumstance, to invoke the alleged violation of the right to juridical personality or of other rights enshrined in the Convention.” Finally, it objected to the addition of new names of persons who had allegedly been “extrajudicially executed,” according to the Commission’s Admissibility and Merits Reports, to the list of persons presumed to have been forcibly disappeared. B. Considerations of the Court 131. In the instant case, the State has been emphatic in pointing out that it does not seek to deny the events that caused the human rights violations, or its responsibility if there has been willful misconduct, negligence or institutional fault on its part or that of public officials or employees (supra paras. 15 and 51). However, it challenged the analysis made by the Court on forced disappearance in its case law, and on this basis argued that international responsibility cannot be attributed to it for the facts of this case. The Court will proceed to respond to the State’s arguments. 132. First, the State argued that it cannot be held internationally responsible for the disappearances that occurred during the internal armed conflict, because the crime of forced disappearance is a permanent crime that was not defined in its domestic criminal law nor did it exist in the inter-American sphere itself, and it cannot be classified as such in accordance with the principles of legality and non-retroactivity of the law. In any case, according to the State, the crime could be classified as kidnapping, unlawful detention or serious injury. 133. In its consistent case law since 1988, 139 the Court has established that forced disappearance of persons is a violation of human rights constituted by three concurrent elements: a) deprivation of liberty; b) direct intervention of State agents or their acquiescence, and c) the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned. In this regard, the Court has also established the pluri-offensive nature of forced disappearance, as well as its permanent or continuing nature, in which the execution of the disappearance begins with the deprivation of the person’s liberty and the subsequent lack of information about his or her fate, and continues until the whereabouts of the disappeared person are known or his or her remains are found, so as to determine with certainty his or her identity. 140 As long as the disappearance continues, States have the correlative duty to investigate it and, eventually, to punish those responsible, in accordance with the obligations derived from the American Convention and, in particular, from the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (ICFDP). 141 134. This Court has jurisdiction to characterize the facts of the instant case as forced disappearance given the permanent or continuous nature of its constituent acts, and the fact that it is a “multi offensive” crime, which violates several rights recognized in the American Convention as long as the whereabouts of the victim are not known or his remains are not found. The Court recalls that forced disappearance encompasses multiple acts which, combined for a single purpose, permanently violate, for as long as they subsist, different legal rights protected 139 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 155, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 141. 140 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 155 to 157, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 31. 141 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 145, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, para. 115.