determine the whereabouts of the disappeared persons.9 On this point in particular, the Court stresses the importance of compliance with this measure, since it involve moral satisfaction and allows the victims’ next of kin to bring closure to the mourning process they have been experiencing all these years.10 14. Consequently, the State must immediately take the necessary steps to find the whereabouts of Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández Paz, and José Francisco Rivas Fernández as soon as possible and, should they be deceased, the State must deliver their remains to their family members. For the Court to be able to monitor effective compliance with this obligation, the State must submit complete detailed and updated information, providing copies of all corresponding documentation, with regard to the measures it has adopted to comply with this aspect. c) Regarding the obligation to publish, once, within six months of notification of this judgment, in the Official Gazette and in another national newspaper, the chapter of the judgment on Proven Facts, without the footnotes, paragraphs 54 to 65 of the section of the judgment entitled Merits, and the operative paragraphs (eighth operative paragraph of the judgment); 15. The State reported that “it [was] arranging for the resources to make this publication within the next few months.” The representatives considered that “there ha[d] been no significant impediment to complying with this operative paragraph, which is a simple procedure and, furthermore, it would be incomprehensible that the State postpone publication until 2010 as indicate[d] in its report.” The Commission took note of the State’s willingness to make this publication soon and asked the Court to require further information from the State on this aspect. 16. The State reiterated the information provided previously,11 that “it was arranging for the resources to make this publication.” In this regard, the Court notes with concern that, almost six years after notification of the judgment that is being monitored and two years after the submission of the State’s last report, it has no information showing effective compliance with this obligation. Consequently, the Court requests the State to present recent information, with copies of the corresponding documents regarding the steps taken to comply with this aspect. d) Regarding the obligation to adopt, in accordance with Articles 7(6), 25 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, the legislative or any other measures that may be required to ensure that applications for habeas corpus can be implemented effectively in Venezuela in situations of forced disappearance (ninth operative paragraph of the judgment) 17. The State declared that Article 27 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela establishes that “anyone may file an application for protection (amparo) of liberty and safety, or for habeas corpus, and the person detained must be placed […] in the custody of the court immediately and with no delay”; also that “the exercise of this action shall not be affected in any way by the declaration of a state of emergency or by 9 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of July 5, 2011, fifteenth considering paragraph. 10 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 245, and Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra note 9, fourteenth considering paragraph. 11 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 7, 2009, eighth considering paragraph, subparagraph (d). 6