pointed out that "no action had been taken on the matter,"154 while the other stated that contact had been made with authorities from Quero Canton, without anyone cooperating to establish the whereabouts of Mr. Núñez Naranjo.155 After the second complaint filed by the victim's father, other statements were collected (supra paras. 55 and 56), and on April 26, 2002, that is, more than nine months after the disappearance, an inspection was carried out at the police station from which Fredy Núñez Naranjo had been kidnapped by the villagers (supra para. 56). From that date, and at least until April 27, 2018, when a new investigation was opened for the crime of forced disappearance committed against Fredy Núñez Naranjo, there is no evidence that the State took any action aimed at determining the whereabouts of the victim. 117. The Court thus verifies that the actions taken by the State to determine the fate of the victim just after his disappearance were clearly insufficient, as they were limited to collecting testimonies. On the other hand, no timely search operation was carried out in the Puñachizag and Shaushi communities. The actions taken by the State, therefore, have not complied with the standards of diligence and immediacy required by this Court in the development of the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection. 118. Furthermore, and as a result of the deficiencies in the investigation expressly acknowledged by the State, the actions taken through December 2002, that is, during the first 16 months after the victim's disappearance, led to the dismissal of the case, which was issued on December 11, 2002 (supra para. 60). Despite reopening the investigation, 16 years later (April 27, 2018), today there is not a single criminal proceeding open against the potential perpetrators of the crime of forced disappearance (supra para. 62) and, even less so, any sanction imposed against them. 119. In these terms and taking into account, as additional elements, that i) the State acknowledged its responsibility for the failure to fulfill the obligations to investigate and punish (supra par. 25), and ii), the Court concluded that a forced disappearance was committed (supra para. 98), this Court considers that the State is also responsible for the violation of the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for the crime of forced disappearance, as provided in Article I (b) of the IACFDP. Similarly, based on the principle iura novit curia, the Court notes that, although its violation was not expressly alleged by the Commission or by the representatives, the State's omissions led to the violation of the right to truth. In view of the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that such violation arises from the failure to comply with the obligations derived from Articles 8(1), 13(1), and 25(1) of the Convention. Indeed, due to the lack of timely investigation into the incident and determination of the victim's whereabouts, the State has deprived the relatives of Fredy Núñez Naranjo of their right to know the truth about what happened. 120. Given the above, and considering the acknowledgement of state responsibility and its implications, as well as the evaluations carried out, the Court concludes that the State has violated the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, provided for in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Fredy Núñez Naranjo, his parents, Sixto Núñez and María Gregoria Naranjo, and his sisters, Silvia and Marcia Núñez Naranjo, for not having undertaken immediate and diligent search efforts to determine the whereabouts of Fredy Núñez Naranjo. Likewise, Ecuador is responsible for the violation, to his detriment, of the obligation to sanction those responsible for the crime of forced disappearance, established in Section I (b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. Finally, based on the violations found, the Court states that 154 155 Cf. Testimonial statement of MV of August 15, 2001 (case file of evidence, page 37). Cf. Testimonial statement of LAPV on August 15, 2001 (case file of evidence, page 323). -34-