30 obstruction in the investigations persist and their purpose has been varied in order to demonstrate the inexistence of the alleged victims. Considerations of the Court 100. Since the State argues that the conduct of forced disappearance should not be invoked retroactively, because it was defined as such after the time at which the facts in this case allegedly occurred, and that “it lacks juridical logic” and is “practically impossible that the forced disappearance of persons constitutes an integral, continuing and permanent whole, unless this has been established in the respective conventions,” the Court considers that it must reiterate what it has established in its constant case law on cases of forced disappearance of persons. In this regard, it has stated that it constitutes an unlawful act that gives rise to multiple, continuing violations of several rights protected by the American Convention and places the victim in a state of complete defenselessness, which involves other related crimes; it is a crime against humanity. The State’s international responsibility is aggravated when the disappearance is a feature of State practice.14 Also, forced disappearance presumes disregard of the obligation to organize the State structure so as to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. Hence the importance that the State should adopt all necessary measures to avoid such facts, investigate and punish those responsible and, also, inform the next of kin of the whereabouts of the disappeared and compensate them, when applicable.15 101. Starting with its first cases in 1988,16 the Court classified the series of multiple and continuing violations of several rights protected by the Convention as forced disappearance of persons, based on developments in the sphere of international human rights law at that time, which years later led to the adoption of declarations and conventions on this subject. 102. In the judgment on merits in the Velásquez Rodríguez case, delivered on July 29, 1988,17 the Court referred to the evolution of the concept of forced disappearance of persons, particularly in the 1980s, as follows: 151. The establishment of a Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, by Resolution 20 (XXXVI) of February 29, 1980, is a clear demonstration of general censure and repudiation of the practice of disappearances, which had already received world attention at the UN General Assembly (Resolution 33/173 of December 20, 1978), the Economic and Social Council (Resolution 1979/38 of May 10, 1979) and the 14 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (Art 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004, Series C No. 108, para. 41. 15 Cf. the case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 142; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, paras. 128 and 129; Blake case. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, paras. 65 and 66; Castillo Páez case. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 72; Blake case. Preliminary objections, supra note 8, paras. 35 and 39; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales case. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, paras. 147 to 152; Godínez Cruz case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, paras. 163 to 167; and Velásquez Rodríguez case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 155 to 158. 16 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 15, paras. 149 to 153; Godínez Cruz case, supra note 15, paras. 157 to 161; and Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales case, supra note 15, para. 146. 17 Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 15, paras. 151 and 152. Likewise Cf. Godínez Cruz case, supra note 15, paras. 159 and 160; and Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales case, supra note 15, para. 146.