were filed, the participation or acquiescence of State authorities in the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Palma could have been reasonably assumed, this was not proved and judicial decisions found that, to the contrary, what happened to Mr. Palma had been carried out by private individuals (supra para. 61 and infra paras. 100 and 101). Consequently, irrespective of the authority that processed them, the applications for habeas corpus that were filed could not have resulted in State agents or entities reporting the said deprivation of liberty. Consequently, the Court will not make an autonomous examination of the effectiveness of the applications for habeas corpus filed in this case. On the same grounds, it understands that it is not appropriate to analyze the compatibility of the way in which the mechanism of habeas corpus was regulated in Ecuador at the time of the events with the obligation to adopt provisions of domestic law that arises from Article 2 of the Convention. 112 89. Despite the above, the filing of these applications resulted in a large number of State authorities becoming aware of what had happened to Mr. Palma Mendoza (supra paras. 34 and 37). 90. It remains to clarify that the State indicated that the existence of the application for habeas data should have been considered when analyzing whether there was an effective remedy to determine the whereabouts of a person deprived of his liberty. Nevertheless, according to the analysis made, it is not relevant to examine this argument. 2.3. Investigation conducted following the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Palma Mendoza 91. When the matter warrants this, as in the instant case, the obligation to investigate includes the obligation to take measures aimed at satisfying the rights of the next of kin to know the fate or whereabouts of their relatives. 113 Thus, in cases in which the person is missing as the result of an unlawful act, the investigation must include taking all necessary measures to determine their fate and to discover their whereabouts. 114 The Court has also indicated that, following a report of disappearance or abduction, the States must act promptly in the initial hours and days.115 92. The Court notes that, in a case such as this one, in which the State authorities were informed that Mr. Palma Mendoza had been the victim of an unlawful act, the execution of which had presumably not yet ceased, and that jeopardized his liberty and endangered other protected human rights, such as life and personal integrity, the State should do everything possible to find the person in question and put an end to the unlawful act. 112 In this regard, it is worth noting that, in its decision in the case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, the Court ordered the State “to adapt its legislation, within a reasonable time, to the parameters of the American Convention on Human Rights,” in relation to the need for Ecuador’s laws on habeas corpus to be in keeping with Article 7(6) of the Convention as regards the intervention of a judicial authority (cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paras. 128, 130 and 268 and eleventh operative paragraph). Subsequently, when monitoring compliance with the judgment, the Court, in an Order of April 29, 2009, determined that the State had “adapted the domestic laws that regulate the application for habeas corpus to the American Convention” (cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of April 29, 2009, subparagraph (c) of the second operative paragraph. 113 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 80, and Case of González-Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 209. 114 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, para. 80, and Case of González-Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 209. 115 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 284. 29