instrument ratifying each of them, even if they were not in force when the perpetration of the forced disappearances and the other violations alleged in this case began. 679 439. In addition, in cases of enforced disappearance, the investigation will have certain specific connotations that arise from the very nature and complexity of the phenomenon investigated. This means that the investigation must also take all the necessary steps to determine the fate of the victim and his or her whereabouts. 680 The Court has already clarified that the obligation to investigate facts of this nature subsists while the uncertainty of the final fate of the disappeared person remains, because the right of the victim’s next of kin to know his or her fate and, if applicable, the whereabouts of his or her remains, is a fair expectation that the State must satisfy by all available means. 681 440. Based on the arguments of the parties and of the Commission, the Court will now analyze the alleged violations relating to the investigations into the events of this case, in the following order: (1) the investigations in the military criminal jurisdiction; (2) the detention of those presumably responsible in military facilities; (3) the failure to open an investigation ex officio; (4) the omission in the search for the disappeared victims; (5) due diligence in the investigations; (6) the reasonable time in the proceedings of the ordinary criminal jurisdiction, and (7) the right to know the truth. B.1) Investigations in the military criminal jurisdiction 441. Proceedings were instituted in the military criminal jurisdiction against two members of the Army in relation to the events of this case; one of these was for the forced disappearance of Irma Franco Pineda and the torture and ill-treatment of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino. These proceedings culminated in the discontinuance of the proceeding for forced disappearance, and the declaration of the prescription of the criminal action for torture (supra paras. 163 to 168). The Court underscores that, it was the Special Investigative Court, created days after the events “to investigate the offenses committed on the occasion of the violent taking of the Palace of Justice” (supra para. 156), that referred the investigations into the forced disappearance of Irma Franco Pineda and the torture of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino to the military criminal jurisdiction; while the investigation into the conduct of the members of the guerrilla who took the Palace of Justice was referred to the ordinary justice system (supra paras. 158 and 161). 442. With regard to the intervention of the military jurisdiction to hear acts that constitute human rights violations, the Court recalls its abundant and consistent case law in this regard. 682 In the instant case, it finds it sufficient to reiterate that under the democratic rule 679 Cf. Case of Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 137, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 235. 680 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 80, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 179. 681 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 181, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 179. 682 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paras. 128 to 130 and 132; Case of Cesti Hurtado v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 151; Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, paras. 116, 117, 125 and 126; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paras. 112 to 114; Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, paras. 51, 52 and 53; Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paras. 165 to 167, 173 and 174; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, paras. 141 to 145; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 202; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. 154