the case of Luis Ferreira da Cruz, who remained disappeared to this day. Therefore, the representatives concluded that 28 years after the report of the disappearance of the adolescent Luis Ferreira da Cruz, the State was internationally responsible for violating its obligation to ensure his rights to juridical personality, life, and personal integrity and liberty owing to the failure to investigate the facts surrounding his disappearance. In addition, the representatives argued that the State’s failure to carry out a serious and diligent search for Luis Ferreira da Cruz, the re-victimization by the State in the proceedings before the InterAmerican Commission, the suffering and anguish caused by knowing the circumstances of his disappearance, as well as the fact that he was subjected to a contemporary form of slavery, also resulted in the violation of the right to personal integrity of his family members. 424. The State argued that Luis Ferreira da Cruz and Iron Canuto da Silva were not victims of forced disappearance or any other human rights violation at the time of their flight from Hacienda Brasil Verde. In this regard, the State provided as evidence the death certificate of Iron Canuto da Silva which showed that he died on July 22, 2007. The State also advised that, on August 4, 2015, Maria do Socorro Canuto and María Gorete, foster mother and sister of Luis Ferreira da Cruz, respectively, had informed the Federal Police by telephone, that Luis Ferreira da Cruz had died in a confrontation with the Military Police in the town of Xinguara approximately 10 years previously. 425. The State also indicated that, since he was not carrying identity documents at the time of his death, Luis Ferreira da Cruz had been given an indigent burial and, consequently, his name had not been recorded in the database of the Xinguara Civil Registry. Accordingly, the State argued that, following his flight from Hacienda Brasil Verde, Luis Ferreira da Cruz remained alive for more than 15 years without any indication or evidence that, during that time, he had been subjected to forced disappearance. In addition, the State indicated that the report of the presumed disappearance was made four months after the fact had supposedly occurred, which meant that the State could not have prevented the occurrence of the supposed incident. Consequently, the State concluded that it could not be found responsible for the alleged violation of the human rights established in Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Luis Ferreira da Cruz, or of the presumed violation of Articles 8 and 25 of this instrument to the detriment of his family members. B.4.2 Considerations of the Court 426. The Court has established that, while a forced disappearance subsists, States have the correlative duty to investigate it and, eventually, punish those responsible, pursuant to the obligations derived from the American Convention and, in particular, the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 516 According to the arguments of the parties, this is the obligation that the State has presumably failed to comply with in this case. 427. Regarding the obligation of due diligence when a disappearance is reported, the Court has established that this obligation of means requires the State to take exhaustive measures to find the person concerned. In particular, the prompt and immediate actions of the police, prosecution and judicial authorities is essential, ordering the prompt and necessary measures aimed at determining the presumed victim’s whereabouts. In addition, appropriate procedures should exist for filing reports and these should result in an effective investigation being conducted immediately. The Court has also established that the authorities should Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 145, and Case of the Campesina Community of Santa Bárbara, para. 161. 516 104