50 161. The Court recalls that the forced disappearance of persons is a human rights violation consisting of three concurring elements: a) deprivation of liberty, b) the direct intervention of State agents or their acquiescence, and c) the refusal to acknowledge the detention and reveal the fate or whereabouts of the persons concerned. 179 In its case law, this Court has established the plurioffensive nature of forced disappearance, as well as its permanent or continuous nature, whereby the disappearance and its execution begin with the deprivation of the person’s liberty and the subsequent lack of information about his or her fate, and continue until such time as the whereabouts of the disappeared person are known or his or her remains are found, so as to determine with certainty his or her identity. 180 As long as the disappearance continues, States have the correlative duty to investigate it and, eventually, to punish those responsible, in accordance with their obligations under the American Convention and, in particular, under the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (ICFDP). 181 162. In the instant case, there is no dispute that fourteen victims were taken from their homes and deprived of their liberty on July 4, 1991, and that on the same day one more victim was also deprived of his liberty on the road to Rodeo Pampa. The fifteen victims remained deprived of their liberty and under State custody while they were taken to the abandoned mine called “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón,” an isolated place, away from the road and at a considerable distance from their homes. Thus, the Court must now address the aspects that are still disputed by the parties regarding the events that occurred after July 4, 1991, and determine whether the fifteen victims in this case were subjected to extrajudicial execution or forced disappearance. 163. According to the definition contained in the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons (ICFDP) 182 and the jurisprudence of this Court, “one of the characteristics of forced disappearance, unlike extrajudicial execution, is the State’s refusal to acknowledge that the victim is under its control and to provide information in this regard, for the purpose of creating uncertainty as to his or her whereabouts, life or death, and to cause intimidation and suppression of rights.” 183 This Court has recognized that forced disappearance has frequently included the execution of detainees, in secret and without trial, followed by the concealment of the body to erase the material traces of the crime and to ensure the impunity of those who committed it. 184 In this sense, the Court has heard cases in which the existence of more or less evidence of the death of the victims did not alter its classification as an enforced disappearance. 185 179 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 97, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 226. 180 Cf. inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 155 to 157, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, supra, para. 31. 181 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra, para. 145, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, supra, para. 115. 182 Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons states that: “forced 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.” 183 Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009, para. 91, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members, supra, para. 156. 184 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 157, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 323. 185 In this sense see, Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, paras. 199, 206 and 214, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, paras. 123 and 125.