pertinent to rule on the specific criminal offense applied. In this regard, although in the 2017 ruling, the Oral Court did not elaborate on the matter, the judge in charge of the preliminary investigation stated that because the criminal offense was not on the books on September 26, 1976, (when the forced disappearance of the alleged victim began), “applying it to the facts […] would be a flagrant violation of the principle of freedom from ex post facto law involving the most severe criminal law.” 233 In this regard, the Court reiterates its settled case law to the effect that the forced disappearance of persons is a crime whose commission remains ongoing so long as the whereabouts of the disappeared person are not known or their remains are identified with certainty. 234 Therefore, when the crime of forced disappearance of persons is codified in the books, because the commission of the criminal offense remains ongoing, the new law applies without incurring in ex post facto enforcement. 235 208. In conclusion, the State is responsible for having failed to comply with the obligation set forth in Article 2 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 8(1) and 25(1), and with the provisions of Article III of the ICFDP, in view of the delay in codifying the criminal offense of forced disappearance of persons, which, in this specific case, impacted investigation and punishment of the facts related to Julien Cáceres. B.3. The search for the whereabouts of Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite and Mario Roger Julien Cáceres and their relatives’ right to know the truth 209. The Court recalls that on numerous occasions, it has ruled on States’ obligation to conduct a genuine search during which every effort is made, systematically and rigorously, with the suitable and appropriate human, technical and scientific resources, to establish the whereabouts of the disappeared persons or their remains. 236 The Court has found that returning the body of a disappeared person is extremely important for their next of kin, because it allows for proper burial her in keeping with their beliefs, and also to bring closure to the grieving process that they have been experiencing over the years. 237 210. In the instant case, there is no conclusive information on the whereabouts or fate of the remains of Mario Roger Julien Cáceres and Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite. 211. Regarding Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite, no information was provided and the body of evidence does not reveal procedures or actions undertaken by the State to fulfill its obligation to investigate her whereabouts and, where applicable, search for and locate her remains. 212. However, the documents provided by the State include a note from July 27, 2020, issued by the president of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team indicating that the alleged 233 Cf. Order of July 17, 2020 issued by the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 14 to the answering brief, folio 11017). 234 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, pars. 155 to 157, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 19, 2020, Considering 13. 235 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra, par. 77; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, supra, par. 236; and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance with Judgment, supra, Considering 13. 236 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, par. 191; Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, par. 334; Case of Garcia and relatives v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012, Series C No. 258, par. 200; Case of Osorio Rivera and relatives v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, par. 251; Case of Munarriz Escobar et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355, par. 104; Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, par. 203; Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, par. 299, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 74. 237 Cf. Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, par. 245, and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 228. 55