24 ago and remained closed for more than eleven years as of the recognition of the contentious jurisdiction of the Tribunal (supra para. 28, 74 and 75). Furthermore, considering that the criminal procedure has still no final judgment (supra para. 76), to the time already passed, it must be added the time that goes on until that judgment is delivered. This delay has created a clear denial of justice, which constitutes a breach of the right to access to justice of Renato Ticona’s relatives.70 83. Furthermore, the Court deems that in the investigation and criminal procedure conducted, the State has not carried out the necessary steps to locate Renato Ticona and if applicable, establish the fate and whereabouts of his mortal remains. The foregoing has not allowed Ticona Estrada’s relatives to know the truth of what happened. In turn, the Court observes that it does not spring from the information furnished by the parties that other state authorities have ordered a serious investigation exclusively addressed to locate the fate or whereabouts of the mortal remains of Renato Ticona.71 84. Besides, the State has argued the inactivity on the part of the relatives of Mr. Ticona Estrada during the criminal procedure. Even though said allegations are not relevant considering the State's acquiescence, this Tribunal deems it is necessary to remind that the human rights violations as the ones alleged in the instant case are offenses that can be prosecuted ex officio, according to the provisions established in the Code of Criminal Procedure of Bolivia.72 In this regard, given the situation, the Court deems that an investigation of the facts of the present case must not be assumed as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof.73 85. Based on the foregoing, the Tribunal points out that the criminal procedure has not been an effective recourse to guarantee the access to justice, the investigation and the possible punishment of the responsible for the facts related to the forced disappearance of Renato Ticona and the total reparation of the consequences of the violations. Moreover, in order to comply with Article I.b) of the IACFDP, the State must effectively punish, within a reasonable time, the responsible for the forced disappearances occurring within its jurisdiction, ensuring in this way the compliance with the same nature of the punishment and avoiding impunity. The Court notes that in the time that passed since the disappearance of Renato Ticona to the present day, the State has not complied with the provision established in Article I.b) of the IACFDP”. As a result, the Court concludes, based on the foregoing and on the acquiescence made by the State, that Bolivia is responsible for the violation of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Honoria Estrada de Ticona, César Ticona Olivares, Hugo Ticona Estrada, Betzy Ticona Estrada and Rodo Ticona Estrada, as well as for the non-compliance of the obligation 70 Cf. Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Perú, supra note 38, para. 387; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C Nº. 166, para. 126; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 156. 71 The State mentioned in the final arguments that it has recently taken steps to shed light o the forced disappearances that occurred in the period of 1964-1982, and such steps shall be implemented in a period of three years (2008 to 2010); the case of Renato Ticona is among such disappearances (Brief of final arguments of the State, records of merits, reparations, and costs, volume IV; p. 718). 72 Sections 5 and 46 of the Criminal Procedure Code in force at the moment of the incidents (infra notes 75 and 76). 73 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. supra note 16, para. 177; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 10, para. 62; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 145.