4 that all investigations into serious human rights violations must contribute to the realization of the right to truth and the reparation of the victims. In the case of forced disappearances, this right entails knowing the fate of the disappeared person. The Court observes that given the specific circumstances of the present case, the evidence collected during the investigation and the judicial proceedings carried out - mainly of a circumstantial and indirect nature – were insufficient to shed any new light on the events following the detention of Ernesto Castillo Páez or his final fate, and thus the victim’s continues to be disappeared[.]8 8. In accordance with the general obligations to respect and guarantee the rights of the next of kin of Ernesto Castillo Páez, and as the Court has stated in the judgments on merits and on reparations delivered in this case, as well as in the said Order of April 3, 2009 (supra first and second having seen paragraphs), the State remains responsible for the obligation to adopt all measures available to it to determine the whereabouts of Ernesto Castillo Páez. In this regard, in paragraphs 90 and 105 of the judgments on merits and on reparations, respectively, the Court found that: [even if] internal difficulties […] prevent the identification of the individuals responsible for crimes of this kind, the victim's next of kin still have the right to know what happened to him and, if appropriate, the location of his remains. It is therefore incumbent on the State to use all the means at its disposal to satisfy these reasonable expectations. 9. Despite repeated requests from the Court (supra fifth having seen paragraph), the State has not presented information on whether judicial or any other measures have been taken made to reconstruct the events following the detention of Ernesto Castillo Páez and to determine his whereabouts. As indicated in the Order of April 3, 2009 (supra second having seen paragraph), during proceedings before the inter-American system, the next of kin of the disappeared victim reported that, according to unofficial information, the youth Castillo Páez “had been murdered on a beach south of Lima and his body had been blown up with explosives.”9 Following the delivery of the judgment on reparations, the State has not advised this Court whether this version of the events has been discredited or corroborated by all the legal means available to its authorities. Therefore, the State is not observing its Convention-based obligation to inform the Court of how it is complying with this measure of reparation (supra sixth considering paragraph). 10. In order to monitor and guarantee the implementation of the measures of reparation ordered, the Court must be able to receive and verify information on execution of the judgment.10 11. To monitor full compliance with the judgments on merits and on reparations in this case (supra first having seen paragraph), the Court considers it essential that the State submit updated information on the legal, administrative, or other measures it has taken to ascertain the whereabouts of Ernesto Castillo Páez, additional to those already reported during the procedure of monitoring compliance with the judgments in this case, in keeping with the second operative paragraph of the Order of April 3, 2009 (supra second considering paragraph), and also the findings in this Order. The Court reserves the right to convene a hearing to assess compliance with the said decisions opportunely. 8 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of April 3, 2009, eighteenth considering paragraph. 9 Cf. Testimony of Augusto Zuñiga Paz given before the Inter-American Court. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para 30(e), and Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 8, twentieth considering paragraph. 10 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 19, 2009, twentieth considering paragraph.