76. Based on the preceding paragraphs and on the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, the Court concludes that Óscar Iván Tabares Toro was the victim of a forced disappearance. Accordingly, it finds the State responsible for violating the rights to recognition as a person before the law, to life, to personal integrity, and to personal liberty established in Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), and 7(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that instrument, and in Article I(a) of the CIDFP—the latter beginning on May 12, 2005. VII.2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION, AND THE RIGHT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, 116 IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE THE RIGHTS OF THE CONVENTION 117 AND ARTICLE I(B) OF THE CIDFP A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 77. The Commission stated that impunity persists for the disappearance of Mr. Tabares Toro because the facts have not been clarified and no one responsible has been punished. It argued that after the disappearance of Mr. Tabares Toro, there was no immediate official response in the form of a search, but rather the opening of a military investigation against the alleged victim for attempted homicide, for which he was acquitted 14 years later. Furthermore, between January and September of 1998, the facts were known only to the military criminal justice system, which the Commission argued would not have the independence and impartiality required for hearing that kind of case. Moreover, the military authorities did not inform Mr. Tabares Toro’s family about his alleged disappearance. It was almost a year after the events when an investigation was finally opened in the civilian courts, and that investigation was full of irregularities, flaws, and omissions. It argued that at least during the first few years of the investigation, the prosecutor's office did not take steps in a timely fashion to determine the alleged victim’s whereabouts or explore all possible lines of investigation. It also argued that because the prosecutor’s office did not go to the scene of the events until January of 2005, the passage of time and the many opportunities for third parties to interfere with the scene may have affected that evidence. It concluded that more than two decades after the events, the investigation remains at the preliminary stage, which represents an unreasonable length of time. 78. The Commission noted that the search for Mr. Tabares Toro has lacked seriousness and diligence because: (a) the requests to carry out inspections of the scene of the crime were delayed on several occasions by the state authorities; and (b) there were long periods of inactivity, even for years, in which no steps were taken to find him. The Commission further stated that no search plan has emerged and there has been no coordination between state officials or bodies toward that end. 79. The Commission thus held that the State violated Óscar Iván Tabares Toro's and his family’s rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, as well as Article I(b) of the CIDFP. 80. The representatives stressed that almost 25 years after the events, the State has neither conducted an immediate, serious, diligent, and effective investigation to determine what happened to Mr. Tabares Toro nor taken effective steps to find him. This has prevented María Elena Toro from finding out the truth and obtaining justice, which means the State has failed to ensure the right to the truth for the victim's families, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention. Furthermore, they asked the Court to rule on the cover-up that undermined the investigation and the lack of sufficient search efforts, as there is still no comprehensive work plan on which a search plan could be based. 81. With respect to the search efforts, the representatives noted that: (a) State institutions failed to initiate a search immediately; (b) the meager steps taken were not significant or systematic, not part of a robust search plan, and not aimed at finding the victim; (c) the formulation and implementation of a search plan based on the designed National Search Plan was requested, but it was not carried out; and (d) in response to the steps taken in November of 2021, the prosecutor's office was asked to report on that work plan and the search process. The prosecutor’s office responded by stating that it had not The right to truth was argued in this case on the basis of Articles 5(1) and 13 of the American Convention. Articles 8(1), 13, 25(1), and 1(1) of the American Convention, respectively. This section also discusses the arguments related to Article I(b) of the CIDFP. 116 117 20