by the members of the Second Criminal Chamber, and declares that a new decision should be issued deciding on the merits of the case presented, based on the appeal file.” 108. This constitutional judgment, which makes a positive contribution to the proceeding, resolves the problem arising from the fact that the criminal case against those who are allegedly responsible for the facts in this case had been declared extinguished owing to the statute of limitations. Consequently, now this problem has been resolved, there should be no impediment for the victim’s next of kin to learn the truth about what happened to José Carlos Trujillo Oroza and for those responsible for the acts that are the subject of the instant case to be investigated and punished. 109. As this Court has indicated, only if all the circumstances relating to the violation are clarified, will the State have provided the victim and his next of kin with an effective remedy and complied with its general obligation to investigate and punish, allowing the victim’s next of kin to learn the truth, not only about the whereabouts of the mortal remains, but also about what happened to the victim66. 110. Finally, according to the general obligation established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, the State has the obligation to take all necessary steps to ensure that these grave violations are not repeated, an obligation whose fulfillment benefits society as a whole. 111. In view of the foregoing, Bolivia should investigate, identify and punish those responsible for the harmful facts that are the subject of the instant case. This obligation will subsist until it has been fully complied with. * * * 112. Regarding the request for an investigation into the whereabouts of José Carlos Trujillo Oroza and the return of his remains, it is important to mention that, in the section on non-pecuniary damage, the Court accepted that it had been proven that ignorance of the whereabouts of Mr. Trujillo Oroza’s remains and the continuing impunity in the case had caused and continued to cause intense suffering to his next of kin (supra para. 88.a). 113. In this respect, the Court has repeatedly indicated that the next of kin have the right to know the whereabouts of the remains of their loved one, and has established that this “represents a fair expectation that the State should satisfy with the means within its reach”67. 114. The continued denial of the truth about the fate of a disappeared person is a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment for the close family68. The right to 66 cf. Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22, para. 58. 67 Velásquez Rodríguez case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 181. Similarly, cf. The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 4, para. 204; Neira Alegría et al. case. Reparations, supra note 28, para. 69; and Aloeboetoe et al. case. Reparations, supra note 28, para. 109. 68 cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 52, paras. 160 and 165; Blake case. Reparations, supra note 45, para. 57; and Blake case, supra note 53, paras. 114 and 116. Similarly, cf. Eur. Court H.R., Kurt