the truth has been development sufficiently in international human rights law69 and, as this Court has maintained on previous occasions, the right of the victim’s next of kin to know what has happened to the him70 and, when appropriate, where the mortal remains are71, constitute a measure of reparation and, therefore, an expectation that the State should satisfy for the next of kin and society as a whole72. 115. In this respect, the Court considers that the delivery of the mortal remains in cases of detained-disappeared persons is, in itself, an act of justice and reparation. It is an act of justice to know the whereabouts of the disappeared person and it is a form of reparation because it allows the victims to be honored, since the mortal remains of a person merit being treated with respect by their relatives, and so that the latter can bury them appropriately. 116. The Court has evaluated the circumstances of the instant case, particularly the continued obstruction of the efforts of the victim’s parents and brothers to learn the truth about the facts and find the whereabouts of José Carlos, due to several de facto and de jure obstacles attributable to the State, such as the failure to define forced disappearance as an offense, the negative of various public authorities to provide information that was not contradictory, and the failure to conduct an effective investigation, during 30 years. 117. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that Bolivia should take all necessary measures to locate the mortal remains of the victim and deliver them to his next of kin. The State should also provide periodic and detailed information on the measures taken to this end. * v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, para. 131; and United Nations Human Rights Committee, Quinteros v. Uruguay Communication No. 107/198, decision of 21 July 1983. 69 See, for example, United Nations Human Rights Committee, Quinteros v. Uruguay Communication No. 107/198, decision of 21 July 1983; United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, forty-ninth session, Revised version of the final report on the question of the impunity of perpetrators of violations of human rights (civil and political rights) prepared by L. Joinet, UN General Assembly Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1; and United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, forty-fifth session, Study on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Final report presented by Theo van Boven, Special Rapporteur, E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1993/8. 70 cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 69; The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 3, para. 100; and The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 4, para. 200. 71 cf. Castillo Páez case, Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 90; Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Reparations (Article 63(1), American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 31, para. 58; and Neira Alegría et al. case. Reparations, supra note 28, para. 69. 72 cf. Castillo Páez case, supra note 71, para. 90. Similarly, cf. United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, forty-ninth session, Revised version of the final report on the question of the impunity of perpetrators of violations of human rights (civil and political rights) prepared by L. Joinet, UN General Assembly Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1; and United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, forty-fifth session, Study on the right to restitution, compensation and rehabilitation for victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Final report presented by Theo van Boven, Special Rapporteur, E/CN.4/Sub. 2/1993/8.