39 defenselessness, giving rise to other related infringements, becoming particularly serious when carried out as part of a systematic pattern or practice or tolerated by the State.122 104. The multi-offensive characterization, in regard to the affected rights and continuous or permanent nature of the enforced disappearance, has been clearly expressed in a constant manner by the jurisprudence of this Court since its first contentious case, more than twenty years ago,123 even before the definition contained in the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons.124 This characterization is consistent with other definitions in different international instruments125 that indicate concurrent and constitutive elements of enforced disappearance: a) the deprivation of liberty; b) the direct intervention of State agents or their acquiescence, and c) the refusal to acknowledge the detention and to reveal the situation or the whereabouts of the interested person.126 In previous occasions, this Court has noted that, in addition, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights,127 the decisions of various instances of the United Nations organs128, as well as the various Constitutional Courts and other high tribunals of the American States,129 coincide with the indicated characterization.130 122 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Perú. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 59; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. México, supra note 24, para. 139, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 59. 123 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 25, para. 155; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, paras. 81 and 87, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 60. 124 Said Convention establishes that “enforced disappearance is considered to be the act of depriving a person or persons of his or their freedom, in whatever way, perpetrated by agents of the state or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support, or acquiescence of the state, followed by an absence of information or a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the whereabouts of that person, thereby impeding his or her recourse to the applicable legal remedies and procedural guarantees.” 125 Cf. Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearance, U.N. Doc. A/RES/61/177, of December 20, 2006; Article 7, numeral 2, subsection i) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9, of July 17, 1998, and Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance of Persons, General Comment to Article 4 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearances of January 15, 1996. Report to the Commission on Human Rights. U.N. Doc. E/CN. 4/1996/38, para. 55. 126 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of 22 de noviembre de 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 85, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 60. 127 Cf. E.C.H.R, Case of Kurt v. Turkey, Application No. 15/1997/799/1002, Judgment of 25 May 1998, paras. 124 to 128; E.C.H.R, Case of Çakici v. Turkey, Application No. 23657/94, Judgment of 8 July 1999, paras. 104 to 106; E.C.H.R, Case of Timurtas v. Turkey, Application No. 23531/94, Judgment of 13 June 2000, paras. 102 a 105; E.C.H.R, Case of Tas v. Turkey, Application No. 24396/94, Judgment of 14 November 2000, paras. 84 to 87, and Case of Cyprus v. Turkey, Application No. 25781/94, Judgment of 10 May 2001, paras. 132 to 134 and 147 to 148. 128 Cf. H.R.C. Case of Ivan Somers v. Hungría, Communication No. 566/1993, Report of July 10, 1996, para. 6.3; Case of E. and A.K. v. Hungría, Communication No. 520/1992, Report of May 5, 1994, para. 6.4, and Case of Solórzano v. Venezuela, Communication No. 156/1983, Report of March 26, 1986, para. 5.6. 129 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Case of Marco Antonio Monasterios Pérez, Judgment of August 10, 2007, (declaring the pluri-ofensive and permanent nature of the crime of enforced disappearance); Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Mexico, Thesis: P./J. 87/2004, “Enforced disappearance of persons. The period of the statute of limitation initiates [when] the victim appears or fate is known” (affirming that the enforced disappearances are permanent crimes and that the statute of limitation should be calculated as of the date of the perpetration of the act has ceased); Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Chile, Case of Caravana, Judgment of July 20, 1999; Plenary of the Supreme Court of Chile, Case of removal of immunity of Pinochet (Caso de desafuero de Pinochet), Judgment of August 8, 2000; Court of Appeals of Santiago de Chile, Case of Sandoval, Judgment of January 4, 2004 (all declaring that the crime of enforced disappearance is continous, against