44 by the Prosecution. The next of kin of the victims or their representatives must have full access and standing at all stages and levels of the domestic criminal proceedings instituted in the instant case, pursuant to domestic law and to the American Convention. The outcome of such proceedings must be publicly disseminated by the State, in a manner enabling Venezuelan society to know the truth about the events in the instant case. 98. Furthermore, as the Court has pointed out constantly in its case law59no domestic law statute or rule ─including amnesty laws and statutes of limitations─ may prevent a State from complying with the order of the Court to investigate and punish those responsible for human rights violations. Specifically, amnesty provisions, statutes of limitations and rules excluding liability purporting to hinder investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious violations of human rights ─such as those in the instant case, forced disappearances─ are inadmissible, for such violations infringe upon non-derogable rights recognized under International Human Rights Law. b) Obligation to search for the mortal remains of Messrs. Oscar José BlancoRomero, Roberto Javier Hernández-Paz and José Francisco Rivas-Fernández, as well as to deliver them to their next of kin 99. The Commission and the representatives requested the Court, as a measure of satisfaction in the instant case, to order the State to find out where Messrs. Oscar José Blanco-Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández-Paz and José Francisco RivasFernández are, so that their next of kin may complete mourning for their disappearance. In such sense, the Tribunal considers it mandatory for the State to take the necessary steps to find out where such persons are, as soon as possible. In case they be found dead, such steps are to be geared towards delivering the mortal remains to their next of kin, for them to be buried in the manner the latter may consider proper. In such event, the State must afford the necessary conditions to convey the remains to the place the next of kin may choose, and must provide an appropriate burial, at no cost for the aforementioned next of kin. c) Publication of the instant Judgment 100. The acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State during the public hearing held on June 28, 2005 is a positive contribution to the advancement of these proceedings and to the effectiveness of the principles inspiring the American Convention, as the Court pointed out in its order of the same date. Likewise, the Tribunal notes with satisfaction that, during such public hearing, the State expressed “to the representatives of the next of kin of the victims [its] regrets for all the vicissitudes they have underwent throughout these proceedings” and requested to be allowed to “present [them its] apologies directly.” 101. The Court deems fit that, as an additional measure of satisfaction aimed at giving reparation for the harm suffered by the victims and their next of kin, as well as for the purpose of avoiding recurrence of events such as those in the instant case, the State disseminate the appropriate parts of the instant Judgment. In such sense, Venezuela must publish within a six-month delay, as from the date it be notified of 59 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 304; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 97; and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 54, para. 206.