its activities. In any event, the State did not offer any explanation that would justify the lack of a judicial investigations for more than 20 years. 72. The Court notes that, according to the information provided by the State, as of January 2001 the investigation into the possibility of a forced disappearance committed by State agents had not advanced substantially,74 notwithstanding that this was the conclusion in the Final Report of the Truth Commission. This demonstrates that the judicial investigations were not aware of the substantive progress in the investigation of what occurred, specifically in the hypotheses that have been recognized at the national and international levels by the State. 73. In view of the foregoing and of the State’s recognition of international responsibility, the Court holds that the State violated the obligation to undertake de oficio and to conduct with due diligence the investigations into the forced disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán. This also constitutes a violation of Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, according to which the States Parties undertake to “punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories.” B.2 Omission of the duty of due diligence in the search for Mr. Garzón Guzmán and the alleged violation of the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law 74. On multiple occasiones, this Court has ruled on the States’ obligations to conduct a serious investigation, through judicial or administrative channels, in which they make every effort, in a systematic and rigorous manner, with the adequate and appropriate human, technical and scientific resources to locate the whereabouts of disappeared persons.75 In this respect, the Court has pointed out that, in order that an investigation into an alleged forced disappearance be conducted efficiently and with due diligence, the authorities in charge must use all the necessary means to promptly carry out the essential and timely actions and inquiries to clarify the fate of the disappeared persons.76 75. In view of the above, although the duty of due diligence in the search is related to the obligation to investigate the offense of enforced disappearance, it has an autonomous nature. The Court so recognized when it indicated that the search may use means other than judicial. In this same sense, the International Convention on Enforced Disappearances refers to the obligation to search for and locate the disappeared persons as an autonomous obligation 77 and the UN Committee against Enforced Disappearances78 has also so ruled. The Guiding The expert Juan Pablo Albán underscored that “in the specific context of the present case, the State’s line of argument seems to suggest that it considers that what might have occurred is a kind of involuntary disappearance, understood as one in which the arrest, detention, kidnapping or any other form of the deprivation of freedom is the work of persons or groups of persons who acted without the authorization, support or the aquiescence of the State, as the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances states.” Affidavit of the expert Juan Pablo Albán, (evidence file, folio 4512). 74 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 334 and Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 154. 75 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 174 and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 199. 76 Cf. International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Diappearances, Articles 15, 19(1), 24(2), 24(3), 25(2) and 25(3). 77 Cf. Committee against Enforced Disappearances, Final Observations on the Report submitted by Spain under Article 29(1) of the Convention, UN Doc. CED/C/ESP/CO/1, December 12, 2013, para. 32, Committee against Enforced Disappearances, Final Observations on the Report submitted by Burkina Faso under Article 29(1) of the Convention, UN Doc. CED/C/BFA/CO/1, May 24, 2016, para. 40; Committee against Enforced Disappearances, Final 78 19