68 applied. The Tribunal recalls that the duty to investigate, prosecute and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the forced disappearance of a person is an obligation that the States must comply ex officio. 212. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that, because of the facts taken into account in this chapter regarding the forced disappearance of Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, the State also violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention. B.6. Lack of due diligence in discovering the whereabouts of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña 213. Regarding the procedures to discover the victims’ whereabouts, the Commission observed that the available evidence indicates that it was only in 2007, and as a result of repeated requests by the complainant, that the State ordered the exhumation of the bodies, probably among the one of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, despite that since 1983 the State had indications of the possible location of what were alleged to be his remains. Likewise, the Commission stated that the identification of the remains of Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas have had no effect on the criminal proceeding and that no more detailed tests were ordered, in order to verify the complaints of torture against him. It also stated that, even though the discovery of the body demonstrated the falseness of the official version that he was killed to avoid an attempted escape –since at least three shot wounds were found in the osseous remains that corresponded to the victim’s head– the individuals responsible for security in the Achocalla detention center at the time Rainer Ibsen was deprived of liberty were not either summoned to testify. Regarding the search for the whereabouts of Mr. José Luis Ibsen Peña, the Commission alleged that, based on the testimony of one of the accused, only one procedure was performed during which no measures were adopted to ensure the adequate safeguard of the evidence and it was carried out using a backhoe, a method that jeopardized the integrity of the material collected. Finally, it indicated that there had been no progress in the identification of what could be his remains, which means that Mr. Ibsen Peña remains disappeared. 214. In this respect, the Court has established that as part of the obligation to investigate, the State must carry out a reliable search, making all possible efforts aimed at finding for the whereabouts of the victim, because the right of the next of kin to know the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared victim248 constitutes a measure of reparation and, therefore, an expectation of the latter that the State must satisfy.249 Clarification of the whereabouts or fate of the disappeared victim is extremely important for the next of kin, because it alleviates their anguish and suffering caused by the uncertainty of the whereabouts and fate of their disappeared next of kin.250 215. The obligation to investigate the whereabouts persists until the person deprived of liberty is found, until his or her remains appear251 or, at any case, until there is certainty 248 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 90; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 89, para. 231, and Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 1, para. 155. 249 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 69; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 89, para. 231, and Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 1, para. 155. 250 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 1, para. 155. 251 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 143.