6 members of the same Colina group who “ha[d] signed cooperation agreements and acknowledged their participation in the victim’s detention and death, receiving shorter sentences than those required by law.” Nonetheless, according to the representatives, this information “has not led to the State conducting its own investigations to corroborate these version of the events.” In this regard, the representatives requested that the State do what is necessary to confirm the information provided to them by the accomplices. They also raised the possibility provided by the law on effective cooperation “to revoke their benefits if the information were to prove useless.” The representatives also expressed the wishes of Ms. Victoria Margarita Palomino Buitrón, the victim’s mother, who “awaits the body of her son so as to bury him, hold a wake for him, place flowers on him, and just spend a moment with him,” and [who] “fears she may die before she is able to do so.” 13. The Commission emphasized the importance of this reparation measure, which is why all necessary efforts must be undertaken to locate the remains of Mr. Gómez Palomino as soon as possible. Furthermore, the Commission expressed its concern regarding the fact that the State has not presented any information on the steps it has taken to ascertain the whereabouts of the victim’s remains, only going as far as stating that they are yet to be located. The Commission thus requested that the State "show just how it is using the information provided by those officials who receive cooperation benefits.” Finally, the Commission noted that it is waiting for the State to implement information exchange mechanisms and conduct the consultations necessary to obtain useful information, and undertake specific and timely steps towards fulfillment of this aspect of the Judgment. 14. In Paragraph 82 of the Judgment, the Court accepted as an adjudicated fact that in the course of the investigation into the forced disappearance of Mr. Gómez Palomino, efforts aimed at excavating and exhuming his remains were conducted in the areas surrounding La Chira beach in the town of Chorrillos on November 13 and 19, 2003. The Court does not have information on any later efforts made to this end. That is to say, more than seven years after the first steps were taken, and five years after the notification of the Judgment subject to monitoring, there have been no advances in the implementation of this reparation measure. On this point in particular, the Court highlights the importance that compliance with this reparation measures has, given that it constitutes a moral satisfaction for the victims, which provides closure to the mourning that the family members have had to endure over the years.8 15. The Court reminds that the obligation to carry out, with due diligence, any necessary actions to locate and deliver the mortal remains of Mr. Santiago Gómez Palomino to his next-of-kin is separate from the obligation to effectively investigate the reported facts and, possibly, punish those responsible.9 In this regard, the Court finds that even though these two obligations may be mutually complementary, each has its own separate criteria for compliance, and the State may not choose which of them to fulfill. Thus, the criminal investigation at issue is not incompatible with the adoption of adequate and effective mechanisms for determining the whereabouts of the disappeared persons. 8 Cf. Case of the "Las Dos Erres Massacre" v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 245; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgement of February 24, 2011, Series C. No. 221, para. 258, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 261. 9 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 137 to 140 and 141.