46 the lack of an investigation of the facts, represents an infraction to the legal obligation of the State, established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 4(1) of the same treaty, that being the right to guarantee all persons subject to its jurisdiction, the inviolability of life and the right to not be deprived arbitrarily of life.164 Finally, the Court has concluded that the enforced disappearance entails a specific infringement to the right to juridical personality established in Article 3 of the American Convention, given that the enforced disappearance not only seeks to extract the person from the legal system, but also to deny his or her existence and leaving the person in a state of legal limbo or undetermined situation before society and the State.165 123. The Inter-American Court highlights the gravity of the facts, those of which occurred during 1969 and 1974, which fall in the framework of “the most extreme repressive phase […] of the military regime in Brazil” (supra paras. 86 and 87). In this regard, in its Final Report, the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances of Persons characterized the period in which the facts of the present case occurred in the following manner: in an atmosphere of true “terror of State,” the regime launched [a] sudden and devastating attack [against] the opposition groups […] in first place, against the organizations that worked in the large capital cities […]. Between 1972 and 1974, it combated and exterminated a large Guerrilla base that the [Communist Party of Brazil] held in a training camp in the region of Araguaia […].166 124. The enforced disappearances particularly affected the members of the Guerrilha do Araguaia, one of the “groups with the highest number of disappeared activists,”167 who represent half of those politically disappeared in Brazil.168 125. In consideration of the above mentioned, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the enforced disappearances, and therefore, of the violation of the right to juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity, and personal liberty established in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7, respectively, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of: Adriano Fonseca Fernandes Filho, André Grabois, Antônio Alfredo de Lima (or Antônio Alfredo Campos), Antônio Carlos Monteiro Teixeira, Antônio de Pádua Costa, Antônio Ferreira Pinto, Antônio Guilherme Ribeiro Ribas, Antônio Teodoro de Castro, Arildo Aírton Valadão, Áurea Elisa Pereira Valadão, Bérgson Gurjão Farias, Cilon Cunha Brum, Ciro Flávio Salazar de Oliveira, Custódio Saraiva Neto, Daniel Ribeiro Callado, Dermeval da Silva Pereira, Dinaelza Santana Coqueiro, Dinalva Oliveira Teixeira, Divino Ferreira de Souza, Elmo Corrêa, Francisco Manoel Chaves, Gilberto Olímpio Maria, Guilherme Gomes Lund, Helenira Resende de Souza Nazareth, Hélio Luiz Navarro de Magalhães, Idalísio Soares Aranha Filho, Jaime Petit da Silva, Jana Moroni Barroso, João Carlos Haas Sobrinho, João Gualberto Calatrone, José Huberto Bronca, José Lima Piauhy Dourado, José 164 Cf. Case of Velázquez Rodriguez, Merits. supra note 25, para. 188. 165 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 122, para. 90; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 98, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 24, para. 98. 166 Right to Memory and Truth, supra note 67, folio 5592. 167 Right to Memory and Truth, supra note 67, folios 5614, 5761 and 5762. In the same sense, see the motives exposition No. MJ/352, supra note 149. 168 Cf. Right to Memory and Truth, supra note 67, folio 5758.