162. The representatives agreed with the Commission. Moreover, they held that "not a single person in Argentina has been accused of the crime of forcibly disappearing Iván Eladio Torres Millacura[, and that] the State remains inactive[,] guaranteeing impunity in this case.” In this way, they requested that the Court order the State to order the State to “denounce the facts of this case […] before the International Criminal Court [...] for investigation.” Also, the representatives expressed that "the expectations [of the relatives of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura] do not lie in the Court ordering the State to ‘look for Iván,’ but rather that the Court order […] the State to return him alive, exactly how they took him [sic].” 163. The State rejected the representatives’ claims "as they do not meet international standards on reparations." In addition, it stated that "the facts of this case are being investigated currently by domestic judicial authorities." (supra paras. 132 and 133). Likewise, the State expressed that "parallel to the judicial action toward establishing the facts [and] identifying and punishing those responsible, a ‘Search Dossier’ is being processed in which several investigative measures have been taken." (supra paras. 135 and 137). B.2. Considerations of the Court. 164. Taking this into account, the Court orders the State to remove all obstacles, de facto and de jure, that keep this case in impunity, 169 and orders that all those investigations that may be necessary be launched in order to identify and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for the facts that took place with regard to Mr. Torres Millacura. The State shall direct and complete the pertinent investigations and proceedings within a reasonable period of time in order to establish the truth of the facts. In particular, the State shall: a) start and/or conclude the pertinent investigations with regard to the facts to which Mr. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura was a victim, taking into account the systematic pattern of police abuse that exists in the Province of Chubut, with the goal that the proceeding and the pertinent investigations be conducted in consideration of these facts, avoiding omissions in the collection of evidence and the pursuit of logical lines of investigation. Those investigations must be directed toward determining the masterminds and perpetrators behind the facts of this case, and b) ensure that the competent authorities carry out the corresponding investigations ex officio and that for doing so, they have and use all the logistical and scientific resources necessary to collect and process evidence and, in particular, that they have the means to access documentation and information that is pertinent to the investigation of the facts denounced and to promptly carrying out the actions and inquiries that are essential for brining what happened to Iván Eladio Torres Millacura to light; and that the individuals who participate in the investigation - among them, the family members of the victims and witnesses - have all due guarantees for their security. 165. The Court finds that, based on its jurisprudence, 170 the State must ensure both full access for family members of victims and their capacity to take action at all stages 169 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 277; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 216, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 273. 170 Cf. Case of the Caracazo V. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 70, para. 257, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 256. 49