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.84 112. Therefore, States have the duty not to practice nor to tolerate the forced disappearance of persons under any circumstance. Also, States must reasonably prevent that this crime is committed, carry out a serious investigation with the objective to identify those responsible, and impose the appropriate punishment, as well as to ensure the victim adequate compensation. 85 These duties are expressly stated in Articles I(a) and I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 113. According to its established jurisprudence, the Commission considers forced disappearance to be a complex violation of human rights that continues in time as long as the whereabouts of the victim or his remains is unknown. A disappearance as such ceases only when the victim appears or his remains are found.86 114. In relation to the rights infringed, forced disappearance infringes the right to humane treatment and places the victim in a grave situation of risk of suffering irreparable damage to his rights, humane treatment and life. The Court has established that “prolonged isolation and being held incommunicado constitute, in themselves, forms of cruel and inhuman treatment.”87 Likewise, the Court has expressed that even under the assumption that the acts of torture or deprivation of life of the person in the specific case cannot be proven, bringing of detainees before official repressive bodies, state agents, or individuals that act with its acquiescence or tolerance that practice torture and murder without punishment represents, in itself, an infringement to the duty to prevent violations to the rights to humane treatment and life.88 115. In addition, the Court has considered that, in cases of forced disappearance, in response to 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.89 Beyond the fact that the disappeared person cannot continue to enjoy and exercise other, and eventually all the rights to which they are also entitled, their disappearance is “not only one of the most grave forms of extraction of a person from all realms of the legal system, but also deny their existence and leave it in a state of limbo or an undetermined juridical situation in what refers to society and the State.” 90 The Commission considers that an enforced disappearance also implies a violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection in respect of the disappeared victim, as 84 IACHR, Report No. 101/01. Case 10.247 and others. Extra-legal executions and forced disappearance of persons. Peru. October 10, 2001. para. 178. IACHR Application filed before the I/A Court, Case No. 11.324, Narciso González et al, Dominican Republic, May 2, 2010, para. 103; IACHR Application filed before the I/A Court, Case No. 12.517, Gregoria Herminia Contreras et al, El Salvador, June 28, 2010, para. 131; I/A Court H.R., Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 82; Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 92; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, paras. 100 to 106; and Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C, No. 108, para. 41. 85 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 174; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 202, para. 62; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 142. 86 IACHR, Application before the I/A Court, Case No. 12.529, Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña, Bolivia, May 12, 2009, para. 106. 87 I/A Court H.R., Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Iñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 171; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 202, para. 85. 88 I/A Court H.R., Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 59; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 202, para. 85; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 154. 89 I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 202, paras. 91-92; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 157. 90 I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 202, para. 90. 19