27 80. As to the arguments of the State, this Judgment has already referred to the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made in the instant case (supra paras. 5, 23 to 27 and 35 to 38). Regarding the alleged facts with respect to Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, in the answer to the application the State acknowledged his forced disappearance and contested only the Inter-American Commission’s contention that his remains were not identified until 2008, indicating that the remains were found in 1983 when this fact was allegedly made known to the public at that time. The State concluded that, therefore, the forced disappearance ceased in that year (supra para. 27). However, the Tribunal notes that in its final written arguments, the State sustained that in light of the evidence presented to the Tribunal during the proceedings, "it [was] not possible to declare an international violation [for the] forced disappearance of [Mr.] Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas.”88 81. The Tribunal notes that the State’s argument that it is not possible to declare an "international violation" for the forced disappearance of Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas is inconsistent with the acknowledgment of responsibility made in the answer to the application and ratified at the public hearing held in the instant case (supra paras. 5 and 8). Given that it falls upon the Tribunal to determine whether an acknowledgment of international responsibility made by a respondent State provides a sufficient basis, under the American Convention, for continuing with the deliberation of the merits and the determination of possible reparations and legal costs (supra para. 33), the Court shall determine the legal effects of the relevant facts proven in this Judgment (supra paras. 34 to 38). 82. The Tribunal has indicated that the constitutive elements of forced disappearance are permanent as long as the whereabouts of the victim are not known or his or her remains have not been located (supra paras. 59 and 67). However, with respect to the aforementioned issue, a State’s obligation is not limited merely to the act of finding the remains of a particular person; logically, this act must be accompanied by evidence or analyses to corroborate that, in fact, those remains belong to that person. Therefore, in cases of alleged forced disappearance where there are indications that the alleged victim has died, the determination of whether a forced disappearance existed and has ceased, if applicable, necessarily entails irrefutably establishing the identity of the individual to whom the remains belong. Thus, the appropriate authorities must carry out a prompt exhumation of mortal remains so that they may be examined by a competent professional. Exhumations must be carried out in a manner that protects the integrity of the remains collected so as to establish, if possible, the identity of the deceased, the date on which he or she passed away, the manner and cause of death, and the existence of possible injuries or signs of torture.89 88 In this regard, the State indicated that: a) “exact information demonstrating that State agents physically eliminated Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and then proceeded to disappear his remains is lacking”; b) “the State […] never hid Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas’s mortal remains[.] […] [O]n the contrary, it assisted in their identification as of 1983, the year in which his whereabouts were made known;” c) “no documentation has been added to demonstrate that [Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas’s] mortal remains [were] sought out [by his next of kin] after the return to a democratic State;” d) in reports presented by the State and the testimonies heard at the public hearing, “it has been indisputably proven that […] the Ibsen family awareness of [Mrs.] Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas’ death”; and e) according to the testimony of Delia Cortez Flores, representative of ASOFAMD, [in 1983,] there was knowledge of the existence of 14 cadavers that had disappeared and […] of the fact that one of them corresponded [to Rainer Ibsen,] who had been identified in a grave that had a plaque with his name and date of death on it.” 89 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Serie C No. 162, para. 114; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra. note 1, para. 34. The "Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions,” approved by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in its resolution 1989/65/ of May 24, 1989, were drafted