the identification and eventual punishment of those responsible, because these investigations have remained archived since May 14, 2004. Consequently, more than 11 years after the forced disappearances of Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández Paz and José Francisco Rivas Fernández, and almost six years after notification of the judgment that is being monitored, the violations declared in this case continue in impunity. 10. In this regard, the Court finds it appropriate to stress that a trial that is carried to conclusion and fulfills its purpose is the clearest sign of the lack of tolerance of human rights violations, as it contributes to making reparation to the victims and shows society that justice has been done.7 11. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers it essential that the State submit updated, detailed and complete information on the necessary actions undertaken to comply with this aspect, as well as copies of the respective documentation. In particular, the State must refer to the progress made in the criminal proceedings regarding the disappearance of Oscar José Blanco Romero, and also the criminal investigations into the forced disappearance of Roberto Javier Hernández Paz and José Francisco Rivas Fernández, in order to clarify the facts and to identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish all the masterminds and perpetrators of the violations committed in this case. b) Regarding the obligation to adopt the necessary measures to establish the whereabouts of Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández Paz and José Francisco Rivas Fernández as soon as possible. Should they be found dead, the said measures must to be addressed at returning their remains to their next of kin for burial as the latter deem appropriate. In this case, the State must provide the necessary conditions to transfer the remains to the place determined by their next of kin, and give them decent burial at no cost to the said next of kin (seventh operative paragraph of the judgment); 12. The State did not submit specific information in this regard. The representatives observed that the Venezuelan State had not reported “absolutely anything regarding whether steps have been taken to find the remains” of Messrs. Blanco Romero, Hernández Paz and Rivas Fernández, and the Commission expressed its concern owing to the lack of detailed information in this regard. 13. The Court observes the complete absence of State activity to ascertain the whereabouts of Oscar José Blanco Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández Paz and José Francisco Rivas Fernández promptly. Consequently, the Court considers it appropriate to recall that this obligation is independent of the obligation to investigate effectively the facts of the case and to eventually punish those responsible.8 In this regard, the Court finds that although these two obligations may be mutually complementary, each requires a separate form of compliance, and it is not for the State to choose which of these obligations it must fulfill. Thus, there is no incompatibility between the criminal investigation and the adoption of different adequate and effective mechanisms to 7 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, twenty-first considering paragraph, and Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, sixteenth considering paragraph. 8 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, paras. 94 to 98 and 99. 5