authorities.” In addition, with regard to the special investigation procedure, it indicated that “the State authorities involved in the procedure failed to take measures to ensure the effectiveness of the judicial action.” The Commission recognized that this case “is exceptional as regards the progress made in the investigation and punishment of two of the perpetrators of the detention of Edgar Fernando García”; however, it stressed that, until the discovery of the Historical Archive of the Police, the case remained in total impunity. It also indicated that it is still necessary to “determine who the [other] responsible parties are,” bearing in mind that of Edgar Fernando García’s disappearance “involved a series of State institutions ranging from the military intelligence unit of the Presidential General Staff […] to members of the National Police.” 126. The representatives argued that “for more than 27 years the State […] has refused to provide any information that would establish the victim’s whereabouts [by] denying official information and not allowing access to justice.” They indicated that the applications for habeas corpus filed by the family members were declared inadmissible “almost as soon as [they were filed]” and “did not result in an investigation that was conducted properly.” According to the representatives, the State “failed to comply with the obligation to provide a simple, prompt and effective judicial remedy to the victim’s next of kin […] and this occurred by both act and omission,” “by abstaining from receiving complaints, by not opening an investigation into the facts ex officio, and by denying justice to the complainants and those who filed the applications for habeas corpus.” They stressed that the investigation has exceeded a reasonable time, to the point that “Alejandra García [who was one year old at the start of the disappearance …] has been able to graduate from university as a lawyer and serve as the lawyer” acting for the complainants in the internal criminal proceedings concerning her father’s disappearance. They underscored that the State had failed to punish “the masterminds, accomplices and accessories to the crime of forced disappearance” of Edgar Fernando García. Lastly, they argued that the State had violated Article 2 of the Convention “by failing to legislate to create legal instruments that facilitate the search for persons who were forcibly disappeared,” because “it ha[d] delayed the approval of bill 3590 proposed by several civil society organizations [in order to create a National Commission for the Search for Disappeared Persons].” 127. The State partially accepted its responsibility for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It indicated that “the State’s actions […] should be analyzed in light of the complexity of the facts and the difficulties faced by the authorities to carry out their task.” It indicated that, “aware of the serious situation that prevailed in the country,” it had taken various measures to meet its international obligations, such as the creation of a special investigation procedure and the inclusion of the crime of forced disappearance in the Criminal Code. It indicated that, “despite [these] legal actions, [… following two applications for habeas corpus in 1984,] the procedural activity of the interested parties was not taken up again until 1997.” It argued that it had taken the “necessary steps” to investigate and identify those responsible for the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García because, following the application for habeas corpus filed in 1997, “it began a special investigation procedure […], which allowed it to bring duly founded charges against members of the former National Police.” It also stressed that, “even though it was not the State that divulged” the Diario Militar, “considerable efforts had been made to prove [its] authenticity.” In addition, it emphasized that the Historical Archive of the National Police had been divulged by the Ombudsman’s Office, which demonstrated “the importance of the State’s efforts to recover the country’s historical memory and, thus, elucidate the facts.” In addition, the State indicated that significant progress had been made towards the prosecution of the possible masterminds of the events, and advised that “those who occupied the posts of Director of the Fourth Unit of the National Police and Director General of the National Police at the time of the events,” were currently being tried. 45