7 with the location and handing over of the individual, Ernesto Castillo Páez, specifically because it [does] not perform any [inquiring] activity that would lead to conclude that there is even a real intention of finding his remains.” 11. That the Commission valued that the State has culminated the criminal proceedings in question with the judgment of June 30, 2008, and considers that said fact “constitutes a fundamental step toward compliance with the judgment.” However, it mentioned that the State has not provided information on the actions destined to locating the remains of Ernesto Castillo Páez so they may be handed over to his next of kin. 12. That this Court has asserted that the prohibition of forced disappearance of persons and the corollary duty to investigate it and punish those responsible for it are regulations that “have reached a nature of jus cogens.”5 13. That in a repeated manner the Tribunal has established that the obligation to investigate the forced disappearance of persons, among other grave violations of human rights, shall be complied with by the State pursuant with the international standards established by international regulations and jurisprudence. In this line, the Inter-American Court has required that the investigations started with regard to this type of facts must be serious, prompt, exhaustive, impartial, and independent. In this sense, the Court has warned that for an effective compliance of this obligation, the State shall remove all obstacles, de facto y de jure, that help maintain impunity and guarantee the next of kin of the disappeared victim effective means of participation during the investigation process and the judicial processing. 14. That with its actions the State proved it assumed the investigation and the criminal proceedings started in the year 2001 for the forced disappearance of Ernesto Castillo Páez as its own legal duty, pursuant with the international regulations and standards established in this matter (supra Considering Clause number 13). Said actions made evident the State’s will to comply with its obligations to respect and guarantee the rights acknowledged by the Convention to the victims, establish the truth of what occurred to Ernesto Castillo Páez, punish those responsible for his disappearance, and thus avoid that the conditions of impunity that make possible the repetition of this type of facts continue to exist. 6 15. That the Court especially values that the authorities of the Perúvian judicial power acted based on the ruling of this Tribunal in order to guarantee the effectiveness of the stipulations of the American Convention. In this sense, the Tribunal salutes the decisions adopted in the case sub judice by the Public Prosecutors’ Office, the National Criminal Chamber, and the Supreme Court of 5 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006, Series C No. 153, para. 84; Case of Tiu Cojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008, Series C No. 190, para. 81, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Order of Compliance with Judgment of January 27, 2009, Considering Clause number 26. 6 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Perú. Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of August 4, 2008, para. 27. See also: Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 244, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 100.