42 137. The Report of the Special Prosecutors’ Office documented military actions deployed in the State of Guerrero that reveal what could have been the background for the arrest of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco. That report indicated that “[i]t was estimated that for 1971 the Army had 24,000 soldiers, a third part of all its members, concentrated in Guerrero” and that, during that time, the Peasant Brigade for Executions of the Communist Party of the Poor, led by Lucio Cabañas “was who had control of an ample area” of the sierra, reason for which “[t]he army harass[ed] the communities [and] arrest[ed] the inhabitants accusing them of supplying Lucio.”117 In this regard, it points out that after the kidnapping of the then governor elect of the State of Guerrero, Rubén Figueroa, by the Peasant Brigade, occurred on June 6, 1974, weeks before the arrest of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco (supra paras. 124 through 126), “[t]he Army’s response was brutal against the peasant communities, which it considered the bases of the guerrilla movement.”118 According to the report, the Army sought “[t]he annihilation of any traces of the guerrilla, throwing blood and fire to any one who was a member or suspicious of being a supporter of the guerrilla, either within the Party of the Poor or the left wing […].”119 C. Forced disappearance as a multiple violation of human rights and the duties of respect and guarantee 138. As stated in the chapter on preliminary objections of the present Judgment, the phenomena of forced disappearances of persons requires a systematic and comprehensive analysis, reason for which this Tribunal considers it appropriate to reiterate the legal grounds that substantiate the need of a comprehensive perspective of forced disappearance in reason of the plurality of behaviors, that joined together toward a single purpose, permanently violate juridical rights protected by the Convention. 139. In International Law this Tribunals’ jurisprudence has been precursor of the consolidation of a comprehensive perspective of the gravity and continued or permanent and autonomous nature of the figure of forced disappearance of persons. The Court has reiterated that it constitutes a multiple violation of several rights protected by the American Convention and places the victim in a state of complete defenselessness, implying other related violations, especially grave when it forms part of a systematic pattern or practice applied or tolerated by the State. Forced disappearance constitutes an inexcusable abandonment of the essential principles on which the Inter-American System is based120 and its prohibition has reached a nature of jus cogens.121 117 Cf. Historical Report to the Mexican Society, Special Prosecutors’ Office for Social and Political Movements of the past. Attorney General of the Republic, 2006 (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 4, page 333 and 342). 118 Cf. Historical Report to the Mexican Society, Special Prosecutors’ Office for Social and Political Movements of the past. Attorney General of the Republic, 2006 (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 4, page 367). 119 Cf. Historical Report to the Mexican Society, Special Prosecutors’ Office for Social and Political Movements of the past. Attorney General of the Republic, 2006 (dossier of appendixes to the application, appendix 4, page 368). 120 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 19, paras. 100 through 106; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 118, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 59. The CIDFP states in paragraph 4 of its preamble that “[t]he forced disappearance of persons of persons violates numerous non-derogable and essential human rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights, in the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, and in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” 121 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 83, para. 84; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 24, para. 91, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 59.