93. The State argued that there was a serious, exhaustive investigation focused on the death of the alleged victim, since the judicial authority contemplated the need to investigate and punish those responsible for the "murder" of the alleged victim, and highlighted actions taken by the parties. It pointed out that there was an ex officio investigation, since the initiation of the ordinary criminal proceedings was a consequence of submitting the report of the Chamber of Deputies to the Judiciary. The State referred to the elements that constitute the reasonable time and argued that: (i) the case was highly complex, considering the number of subjects of proceedings and the number of crimes that were investigated, tried, and convicted; (ii) as the procedural activity of the person concerned, it assured that the alleged victims had active participation in the process, without interruptions, filing appeals and submitting applications; (iii) the judicial authorities acted diligently in the proceedings in order to clarify the facts of the case, and (iv) with regard to the effect that the duration of the proceedings had on the alleged victims, they did not demonstrate to what extent the duration of the proceedings caused them a grievance, since the State carried out exhaustive work to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and therefore concluded that it had not violated the reasonable time. Moreover, with regard to the alleged situation of impunity, the State argued that the extinction of the criminal proceedings was prevented, thereby keeping the acts perpetrated in July 1980 from going unpunished. Regarding the lack of compliance with the judgment, he pointed out that, among the convicts, José Luis Ormachea died, and Felipe Froilán Molina is currently serving his sentence in the San Pedro de Chonchocoro prison. With regard to Franz Pizarro Solano, it argued that the necessary efforts were being made to determine his whereabouts. With respect to convicts with a less than 3 years' imprisonment who did not serve it, the State argued that access to certain prison benefits cannot be restricted under Bolivian law. A.2. Definition of the crime of forced disappearance of persons 94. The Commission noted that, in application of the principle of non-retroactivity, the ordinary criminal proceedings concluded in 2007 did not refer to the crime of forced disappearance, which was defined in Bolivian legislation in 2006. Despite the fact that the State ratified the ICPPT on May 5, 1999, and it was only in 2006 that the crime of forced disappearance was incorporated into Bolivian criminal law. It argued that the investigation was not aimed at determining factual circumstances that were related to elements specific to forced disappearance. In this regard, it argued that, due to the continuous or permanent nature of the forced disappearance, if the criminal conduct continues, the new law is applicable. 95. The representatives argued non-compliance with the obligation of adequacy of domestic law and its impact on the investigation, due to the delay in the classification of the crime of forced disappearance. It stressed the failure to comply with the duty to punish forced disappearance and argued that because it was not criminalized, the convicted persons received sentences of 2 or 3 years under Bolivian law, benefited from the conditional suspension of the sentence, and should not have served custodial sentences. 96. The State argued that the resolution of the ordinary criminal proceedings did not include the crime of forced disappearance because the subject matter of the investigation was Mr. Flores Bedregal's murder. It also argued that it was not possible to apply the principle of non-retroactivity, since the crime was incorporated into national law in 2006, when the case had seen advance in the plenary stage. A.3. Search for the whereabouts or remains of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal 31