verified that have allowed the perpetration of these violations or that a State obligation exists that the State has failed to meet.”157 162. As regards the characteristics of the offense of forced disappearance, the Commission and the Court have indicated that the Inter-American Commission on Forced Disappearance of Persons, like different international instruments 158, establishes as concurrent and constitutive elements of forced disappearance: (a) the deprivation of liberty; (b) the direct intervention of state agents or their acquiescence; and (c) the refusal to recognize the detention and to reveal the fate or whereabouts of the person in question.159 163. In addition, forced disappearance has been defined as a continuing or permanent offense, which in turn means that its effects are prolonged over time until the victim’s fate or whereabouts are established. This characteristic places the State in a situation of continuing violation of its international obligations until such time as the victim’s fate is clarified.160 164. The Inter-American Court has noted that given its nature as a violation entailing multiple offenses that is permanent and autonomous, a possible forced disappearance should not be analyzed in an isolated, divided, and fragmented manner, focused solely on the detention or possible torture, or the risk the person in question may lose their life, but rather the focus should be on the whole set of facts presented in the case under consideration.161 The integral treatment of forced disappearance as a complex form of violation of human rights has led the Court to analyze jointly the violation of several rights recognized in the Convention.162 165. Accordingly, the Court has used an integral approach to the forced disappearance of persons considering the plurality of conducts which, tied together by a sole purpose, permanently violate legal interests protected by the American Convention.163 In particular, in cases of forced disappearance the Court has jointly analyzed the violation of the rights to recognition of juridical personality, to life, to humane treatment, and to personal liberty, enshrined in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the Convention, respectively.164 166. Accordingly, for example, as regards the right to juridical personality, in the case Anzualdo Castro v. Peru the Court stated: 157 I/A Court HR. Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012 Series C No. 240, para.133; Case of Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 112. 158 The Court makes reference to the following instruments; Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, General Common on Article 4 of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance of January 15, 1996. (E/CN. 4/1996/38), para. 55; and Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. 159 IACHR. Report No. 111/09. Case 11,324. Merits. Narciso González Medina. Dominican Republic. November 10, 2009. Para. 130; and I/A Court HR, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 60. 160 IACHR, Application to the Inter-American Court in the Case of Renato Ticona Estrada et al. (12.527) against the Republic of Bolivia, August 8, 2007, para. 108. 161 I/A Court HR, Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 56. 162 IACHR, Report No. 101/01, Case 10.247 et al., Extrajudicial Executions and Forced Disappearances of Persons, Peru, October 11, 2001, para. 178, available at www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2001sp/Peru10247.htm; and I/A Court HR, Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, and Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191. 163 I/A Court HR, Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 138. 164 I/A Court HR, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, paras. 51-103; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, paras. 138-59.