21 XVI 90. In connection with the above-mentioned violations of the American Convention, the Court considers that the Peruvian State is obliged to investigate the events that produced them. Moreover, on the assumption that internal difficulties might prevent the identification of the individuals responsible for crimes of this kind, the victim's family still have the right to know what happened to him and, if appropriate, where his remains are located. It is therefore incumbent on the State to use all the means at its disposal to satisfy these reasonable expectations. In addition to this duty to investigate, there is also the duty to prevent the commission of forced disappearances and to sanction those responsible for them. These obligations on Peru shall remain in force until such time as they have been fully performed (Neira Alegría et al. Case, supra 72, para. 69 and Operative Paragraph 4; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, supra 72, paras. 58 and 59; El Amparo Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 61, and Operative Paragraph 4). XVII 91. Article 63(1) of the Convention provides that: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 92. It is evident in the instant Case that, given the irreversible nature of the damage incurred, there is no possibility of guaranteeing the injured party enjoyment in integrum of his right to personal liberty that has been violated. In that situation, the Court deems it proper that reparation be made for the consequences of the violation of the rights specified in this Case by the Court, including the payment of fair compensation. To that end, the Court keeps the instant Case open so that reparations may be fixed at the appropriate procedural stage. XVIII Now, therefore: THE COURT, DECIDES: unanimously, 1. That the State of Peru violated the right to personal liberty recognized in Article 7 of the American Convention Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ernesto Rafael Castillo-Páez. unanimously,