excavation work was commenced in the area” of Atoyac, with the presence of a professional who provided psychosocial support to the victims’ next of kin during the procedure. However, “no clandestine graves or evidence of skeletal remains were detected” on that occasion. The State also indicated that “the reports were received of the experts in social anthropology from the Prosecutor General’s Office and from the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH)”; they had been requested by the latter institution, and “based on the recommendations made in the two reports, the Public Prosecution Service inspected the suggested areas on January 24, 2013,” avoiding a repetition of certain places. In addition, the State indicated that, on February 12, 2013, following a working meeting in the offices of the PGR with INAH experts, “orders were given to scan the subsoil in three areas, […] and this was done from March 11 to 16, 2013.” Lastly, the State emphasized “that, during these procedures, access was provided to the next of kin of disappeared persons who were on the scene […].” 15. The representatives indicated repeatedly that this measure “is the most important one as regards integral reparation for the human rights violations caused by the State, […] because the uncertainty about [the whereabouts of Mr. Radilla Pacheco] prevents the victim’s next of kin […] from concluding their mourning process […].” Furthermore, they welcomed the State’s initiative “to undertake a thorough search for [Mr.] Radilla Pacheco, gathering relevant documentation and testimony that could reveal information on his whereabouts. However, once again, [they] regret[ted] that the Mexican State had delayed so long in undertaking this search, which seriously affects the possibilities of its success.” In addition, they advised that, “even though the prosecution authorities [collected] information by recovering historical archives and testimony, this information has not yet been duly systematized.” Lastly, they indicated that “from May 20 to June 1, 2013, the fourth stage of excavations in the former Atoyac Military Barracks will be carried out,” and that they will be “monitoring the way in which the procedure is carried out,” in order to provide the Court with information in this regard. 16. The Commission assessed positively the efforts made by the State “owing to the reports [of the experts in social anthropology] that would eventually assist in the search for Mr. Radilla [Pacheco].” It also stressed “the meeting that the State had held with the victim’s next of kin to provide them with specific information on the plans to continue the search.” Furthermore, it stated that it was awaiting the results of the fourth stage of excavations at the former Atoyac Military Barracks. 17. The Court underlines the efforts made by the State to find the remains of Mr. Radilla Pacheco, particularly the work of excavation and scanning that has been carried out in the area corresponding to the municipality of Atoyac, as well as the preparation of social anthropology reports in order to obtain new lines of investigation so as to locate them. The Court also appreciates the fact that the State has coordinated with the search measures taken by the victims, as ordered in the Judgment.12 Consequently, the Court urges the State to continue the searches that are underway, within the framework of the communication that it has developed with the victims and their representatives. In this regard, the Court recalls that the effective search for and prompt finding of Mr. Radilla Pacheco or his mortal remains forms part of the next of kin’s right to know the truth,13 and will help alleviate the anguish and suffering caused to his family. Thus, the Court requires the State to provide                                                              12 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 336. 13 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 336. 7