8 Justice, which acknowledged the continuous nature of the crime of forced disappearance of persons, and the use of the means of indirect and circumstantial evidence in this type of cases. These decisions constitute important precedents of Latin American justice in matters of human rights.7 16. That the Court cannot go without mentioning the efforts carried out by the Perúvian State as of the year 2001, during the democratic transition period, in order to eliminate the legal and institutional obstacles that made the observance of the Judgments issued by the Tribunal in this case difficult; among others, the withdrawal of the statement deposited in 1999, which sought to exclude Perú from the Court’s contentious jurisdiction;8 the non-applicability of the amnesty laws,9 and the creation of a criminal sub-system specialized in human rights (supra Considering Clause number 8(c)). In fact, the judicial proceedings carried out with regard to the forced disappearance of Ernesto Castillo Páez were favored by the adoption of these measures within the domestic Perúvian legal system. 17. That from the State’s reports, as well as from the observations presented to those reports by the representatives and the Commission, it can be concluded that the State guaranteed the right of the next of kin of Ernesto Castillo Páez to make arguments, dispose of means of appeal, and present evidence during the criminal proceedings held. 18. That all the investigations of grave violations to human rights shall contribute to the realization of the right to truth and reparation of the victims. In the case of forced disappearances, this right implies knowing the fate of the disappeared person. The Court observes that given the specific circumstances of the present case, the evidence collected during the investigation and the judicial proceedings carried out, in their majority of a circumstantial and indirect nature, are not able to shed new light on the facts that happened after the arrest of Ernesto Castillo Páez or his final fate; thus the victim continues to be missing. In this sense, the State indicated, quoting the rulings issued by the Perúvian courts in this matter (supra Considering Clause number 8(f)), that “up to this time it ignores the whereabouts of the victim, which is a direct consequence of the criminal behavior of the author” of the crime of forced disappearance of persons. 19. That, without detriment to the aforementioned, based on the general obligations of respect and guarantee of the rights of the next of kin of Ernesto Castillo Páez, and as expressed by the Court in the Judgments issued in this case (supra Having Seen paragraphs 1 and 2), the State’s obligation to adopt the measures within its reach to determine the whereabouts of Ernesto Castillo Páez is 7 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 87. 8 Supreme Ruling of February 7, 2001 issued by the Executive Power and permitted by Legislative Determination No. 27401 of January 18, 2001, through which the State repealed Legislative Determination No. 27.152 and ordered, instead, to entrust “the Executive Power with all the actions necessary to leave without effect the results generated by that Legislative Determination, reestablishing in full for the Perúvian State the Contentious Jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.” See in this sense: Cases of Castillo Páez, Loayza Tamayo, Castillo Petruzzi et al., Ivcher Bronstein, and of the Constitutional Court. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 1, 2001, Having Seen paragraph 7. 9 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paras. 43 and 44; Case of Barrios Altos v. Perú. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits. Judgment of September 3, 2001. Series C No. 83, para. 18; and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 177.