102. The Commission notes that although the Report by the "Investigative Commission on the Ultimate Fate of 33 Citizens Detained between June 27, 1973 and March 1, 1985" stated that the alleged victim's death was the result of suicide, that is not sufficient to rebut the above-mentioned elements, given the uncertainty of the information and the fact that that contradiction was not resolved in criminal proceedings conducted with due diligence, as pointed out below. Here, the IACHR points out that the same report states that it was not possible to determine how the alleged victim killed himself because no autopsy was performed," and that his remains were exhumed, taken to the grounds occupied by Battalion No. 14, and cremated, after which his ashes had been scattered in the vicinity. 103. As for the third element, the Commission recalls that State agents told the alleged victim's wife that she had not been detained and that he had been summoned to turn himself in, despite ample evidence showing that she had been detained by State agents.. The Commission draws attention to the fact that issuing "wanted" notices for a person who was actually detained was a strategy deployed in certain cases to cover up the detainee's death, as pointed out by the Parliamentary Investigative Commission of the Chamber of Representatives. At the same time, the IACHR also notes the contradictions regarding the alleged victim's whereabouts. While the Report of the Investigative Committee mentioned in the foregoing paragraph stated that the remains of the alleged victim had been exhumed and taken to the grounds occupied by Battalion No. 14, according to the alleged victim's (Tr. wife?), on August 8, 2005, the Commander in Chief of the Army told President Tabaré Vásquez that his remains were buried in grounds occupied by Battalion No, 13, not 14. Nevertheless, the fate or whereabouts of the alleged victim are still not known. The Commission considers that the above elements show that State agents sought to deny the detention and had no intention of disclosing Oscar Tassino's fate or whereabouts. 3. Conclusion 104. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that Luis Eduardo González González and Oscar Tassino Asteazu were victims of forced disappearance. Given that those disappearances began before Uruguay ratified the American Convention and are still ongoing, the Uruguayan State violated the rights established in Articles XVII, XXV, and I of the American Declaration, Articles 3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, and 7 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, as well as Article 1.a of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons to the detriment of Luis Eduardo González González and Oscar Tassino Asteazu. C. Right to justice (Article XVIII 123 of the American Declaration), right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8.1124 and 25.1125 of the American Convention) in conjunction with the obligation to respect human rights and the duty to adopt provisions under domestic law (Article 1.1 of the aforementioned instrument126 and Articles I.b and I.d of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 127 Article XVIII of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man establishes that: "Every person may resort to the courts to ensure respect for his legal rights. There should likewise be available to him a simple, brief procedure whereby the courts will protect him from acts of authority that, to his prejudice, violate any fundamental constitutional rights." 124 Article 8.1 of the American Convention provides: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 125 Article 25.1 of the American Convention provides: "Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties." 126 Article 2 of the American Convention provides as follows: Duty to adopt measures under domestic law. Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. Articles 8, 25 and 1.1 of the Convention were addressed in the foregoing section. 127 Said Article establishes that the States Parties to the Convention commit to: b) Punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories; (...); d) take legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other measures necessary to comply with the commitments undertaken in this Convention. 123 21