[...]; as it told the State [...] approximately 30 years ago, since [his whereabouts] continue to be uncertain, it has become a source of permanent and constant suffering for all [the family] in this case”; and this was repeated subsequently. In their observations of August 11, 2010, the representatives called the Court's attention to the fact that the State was not taking into consideration that there is already a criminal conviction against the perpetrators of the facts and their accomplices; hence it should seek the remains without the need to open new criminal investigations. In this respect, they indicated that the State should define the search strategies in coordination with CIEDEF and asked the Court to urge the State to find the remains of Renato Ticona through CIEDEF, and not through a criminal action. Lastly, they indicated that the State had announced the declassification of the files of the Armed Forces Staff corresponding to the period of the dictatorships, but that undertaking had yet to be fulfilled. Subsequently, on January 10, 2010, the representatives observed that, even though the search for Renato Ticona has been a priority under the project “Contribution to the full exercise of human rights and the strengthening of democracy” (infra considering paragraph 30), the public opposition of the Armed Forces to the declassification of files has a direct bearing on the results of the goals set by the State in this regard. 19. For its part, the Commission observed that both the purpose and the nature of the investigation opened at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office to determine the whereabouts of Renato Ticona are unclear. Therefore, it considered pertinent that the State report on several aspects, including the reasons why it had chosen this option to search for the victim, despite the existence of CIEDEF, which has the same functions, and whether there is any coordination or connection between the measures being taken by the Public Prosecutor's Office and CIEDEF. In addition, the Commission noted that the information provided by the State does not reveal any specific actions, either at the request of the Public Prosecutor’s Office or in the context of CIEDEF, to discover the whereabouts of Renato Ticona. Consequently, the Commission considered that the State must make every effort to seek the victim, without arguing the absence of “possibilities of specific leads.” 20. In this regard, the Court observes that even though the State has reported on different measures taken to comply with the decisions of the Court, this information is neither sufficient nor specific enough to allow it to conclude that the State is actually making every effort to search for Renato Ticona. It is worth recalling that the State should conduct an effective search for the victim’s whereabouts in a prompt and effective manner, and that the next of kin have the right to know the whereabouts or fate of the disappeared victim. The clarification of his whereabouts or final fate would alleviate the anguish and suffering caused. Consequently, the Court finds it necessary that the State submit detailed and updated information on the specific measures taken to search effectively and promptly for the victim, and the results. In addition, it considers necessary that it refer to the investigation being conducted by the Public Prosecutor's Office to search for the victim, because the project that CIEDEF is implementing to shed light on the cases of forced disappearances over the period from 1964 to 1982 is also giving priority to the search for Renato Ticona. D) Regarding the obligation to publish, once, the relevant parts of the judgment in the Official Gazette and in another national newspaper with widespread circulation (thirteenth operative paragraph of the judgment) 7