22 tribunals of the defendant State, for example, the National Criminal Chamber of Peru, have also decided cases similarly.67 Moreover, the Court notes, in view of the typical nature of forced disappearance, by means of which the victim is seriously vulnerable, that other rights might be violated, which is more evident in a systematic pattern of human rights violations.68 62. In this regard, the Court has held that the general obligation to guarantee the human rights recognized in the Convention, enshrined in Article 1(1) therein, can be fulfilled in several ways, depending on the right that the State must guarantee and the particular needs for protection.69 This obligation implies the duty of States Parties to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights.70 As part of that obligation, the State has a legal duty “to take reasonable steps to prevent human rights violations and to use the means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction, to identify those responsible, to impose the appropriate punishment and to ensure the victim adequate compensation.”71 63. In cases of forced disappearances, the denial to know the truth of the facts is the common characteristics to all the stages (infra paras. 118 and 119). One of the central elements for the prevention and elimination of this practice is the adoption of effective measures to prevent such disappearance or, if applicable, when there is a suspect that a person has been made disappeared, to put an end to that situation immediately. In this sense, this duty to prevent includes all those means of a legal, political, administrative and cultural nature that promote the protection of human rights.72 Hence, the deprivation of liberty in legally recognized centers and the existence of detainees’ records constitute fundamental safeguards, inter alia, against forced disappearances. In the opposite sense, the implementation and maintenance Appellate Court of Santiago Chile, Judgment of January 4, 2004 (everyone declared that the crime of forced disappearance is a continuous crime against humanity, not subjected to statutory limitations and amnesty laws); Case of Vitela et al., Federal Criminal and Correctional Court of Appeals of Argentina, judgment of September 9, 1999 (which declared that forced disappearances are continuous crimes against humanity); Case of José Carlos Trujillo, Constitutional Tribunal of Bolivia, judgment of November 12, 2001 (in the same sense); Case of Castillo Páez, Constitutional Tribunal of Peru, judgment of March 18, 2004 (which determined, based on what the Inter-American Court ordered in the same case, that forced disappearance is a permanent crime until the whereabouts of the victim is established); Case of Juan Carlos Blanco and Case of Gavasso et al., Supreme Court of Uruguay, judgment of October 18, 2002 and judgment of April 17, 2002, respectively (in a similar sense). The foregoing cases are quoted in the case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panama, supra note 58, para. 111. 67 Cf. Judgment of March 26, 2006, National Criminal Chamber of Peru for the crime against libertyabduction of Ernesto Rafael Castillo Páez. In this sense, after almost sixteen years since the occurrence of the events and almost four since the criminal proceeding was instituted against the perpetrators, the National Criminal Chamber of Peru delivered a condemnatory judgment against them for the crime of forced disappearance, in light of the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 1997. By the same token, judgment of August 10, 2007 of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, case of Monasterios Perez and Marco Antonio. 68 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada V. Bolivia, supra note 63, para. 60. 69 Cf. Case of the “Maripirán Massacre” V. Colombia, supra nota 39, paras. 111 and 113; Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 298; Case of Ríos et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 118. 70 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 166; Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 14, para. 137; Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 149. 71 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 174. 72 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 175.