and also within “non-judicial” agencies, particularly the Search Unit for Disappeared Persons. She also referred to institutional mechanisms for coordinating the two areas, as well as the possibility that victims or their relatives have of taking part in search plans. Expert Camacho also explained the institutional framework developed in Colombia, although she pointed out that the various “mechanisms” face “financial, technical and human” difficulties in carrying out their mission. 206. Therefore, the Court orders the State to immediately continue the search actions. The search should be rigorous and conducted via the pertinent judicial and/or administrative channels, making every effort, as quickly as possible, to determine the whereabouts of Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio, or to identify his remains. To do that, the State must have sufficient, suitable human, technical and scientific resources at its disposal, and undertake whatever institutional coordination actions are necessary or advisable. For these proceedings of investigation, the State must establish a communication strategy with the relatives and reach agreement with them on a framework for coordinated action, to ensure their participation, knowledge and presence, pursuant to the relevant guidelines and protocols. If it is established that the victim is dead, the remains must be handed over to his relatives, once his identity has been proven, as quickly as possible and at no cost to the family. The State must also cover the funeral expenses, if applicable, by mutual agreement with the relatives.225 207. However, this Court notes that, based on “the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance226 and other pertinent international instruments,” 227 the United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances adopted the “Guiding Principles for the Search for Disappeared Persons.”228 The Court considers it important that they be taken into account in complying with the reparation measure ordered. The principles are consistent with the guidelines already mentioned (supra para. 206) and cite others, including the following: a) The search for disappeared persons must continue until their fate or whereabouts are determined with certainty, which means that the persons concerned are “again under the protection of the law” or, if they are dead, “have been fully identified.” 229 b) The victim’s relatives, who are also victims, and people who represent or assist them are entitled to participate in the search, which means, among other things, they must have access to information, without prejudice to the measures adopted to preserve the integrity and effectiveness of the criminal investigation or the search. Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, paras. 191 and 192 and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. Ecuador, supra, para. 110. 226 Ratified by Colombia on July 11, 2012. It entered into force for the State on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of the instrument of ratification, pursuant to Article 39(2) of the treaty. 227 The document clarifies that the Principles “take into account the experience of other international bodies and various countries around the world” (Introduction, para. 1). Guiding Principles for the Search for Disappeared Persons of the U.N. Committee on Enforced Disappearances, April 16, 2019. 228 Adopted by the Committee on Enforced Disappearances at its sixteenth session (April 8 to 18, 2019). Doc. CED/C/7. 229 However, the document clarifies (in Principle 7(4)) that “If the disappeared person has not been found and there is credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of his or her fate or whereabouts, the search may be suspended when it is not physically possible to recover the person and once all obtainable information has been exhaustively analysed and all possible scenarios investigated. This decision should be taken in a transparent manner and requires the prior and informed consent of the relatives or persons close to the disappeared person.” The Working Group on Forced or Involuntary Disappearances has also maintained that, although the right of the relatives of a disappeared person to know the truth about the fate and whereabouts of the victim does not admit “any limitation or derogation,” “there is no absolute obligation of result,” given that: “in certain cases, clarification is difficult or impossible to attain, for instance when the body, for various reasons, cannot be found. […] The State still has an obligation to investigate until it can determine by presumption the fate or whereabouts of the person.” (U.N. Human Rights Council. Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances. January 26, 2001. A/HRC/16/48. Para. 39 General Comments General comment on the right to the truth in relation to enforced disappearance, No. 4.). 225 54