39 IX MERITS IX.I RIGHTS TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, 134 PERSONAL INTEGRITY, 135 LIFE 136 AND RECOGNITION OF THE JURIDICAL PERSONALITY 137 OF THE VICTIMS OF FORCED DISAPPEARANCE, AS WELL AS THE RIGHTS TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY AND PROTECTION OF THE FAMILY 138 OF THEIR NEXT OF KIN A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 124. In its Merits Report, the Commission established that eight persons were disappeared on August 24, 1981; January 8, 18 and 31 and February 12, 1982; and December 13, 1984, and that all these persons were last seen in the custody of State agents and, to date, their whereabouts are unknown. The eight forced disappearances allegedly occurred in the context of the violence and persecution perpetrated against the Maya population suspected of being linked to the insurgency. Therefore, it concluded the violation of the rights of said persons to recognition of their juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity and to personal liberty, established in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, as well as the violation of Article 1 of the ICFDP. In its final arguments, it considered that some of the facts that it had classified as extrajudicial executions in its Merits Report could instead be classified as forced disappearances and, consequently, the Court has temporal competence to rule on such facts. In this regard, it stated that the victims of forced disappearance are those persons who were thrown into clandestine graves and who, as of March 9, 1987, had not been exhumed, and whose remains had not been identified or handed over to their relatives. The foregoing, because the State engaged in actions to conceal what happened and prevent the identification of the remains. On this point, it referred to the similarities between this case and the Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, in which the Court classified the facts as forced disappearance despite clear evidence of the victims’ deaths. 125. Furthermore, the Commission held that the relatives of the disappeared are, in turn, victims of a violation of their personal integrity. It established that the persecution, the extreme violence, the situation of great vulnerability and the intention to destroy the family and social foundations that prompted the violence in the context of the facts, allow it to consider an autonomous violation of the right to the protection of the family. It also noted that in the instant case there has been no proper investigation of the facts, or any effective judicial process. 134 Article 7 of the Convention states: “1. Every person has the right to personal liberty and security. 2. No one shall be deprived of his physical liberty except for the reasons and under the conditions established beforehand by the constitution of the State Party concerned or by a law established pursuant thereto. 3. No one shall be subject to arbitrary arrest or imprisonment. 4. Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him. 5. Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings. His release may be subject to guarantees to assure his appearance for trial. 6. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent court, in order that the court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his arrest or detention and order his release if the arrest or detention is unlawful. In States Parties whose laws provide that anyone who believes himself to be threatened with deprivation of his liberty is entitled to recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. 7. No one shall be detained for debt. This principle shall not limit the orders of a competent judicial authority issued for nonfulfillment of duties of support.” 135 Article 5 of the 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.” 136 Article 4(1) of the Convention states: “1. Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of Concepción. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 137 Article 3 of the Convention states: “Every person has the right to recognition as a person before the law.” 138 Article 17 of the Convention establishes: “1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.”