that has been established for domestic reasons. 25 In addition, the Court recalls that, according to the provisions of paragraph 383 of the Judgment, “during the proceedings on monitoring compliance with this Judgment, [the Court] may determine that the State reimburse the victims or their representatives the reasonable expenses they incur during this procedural stage.” Thus, as the Court has underscored in other cases, 26 the State has the obligation to implement the appropriate mechanisms to ensure compliance with its obligations as expeditiously and efficiently as is possible, in the conditions and within the time frame stipulated in the Judgment and, particularly, to take the appropriate measures to ensure that the compensation established in favor of the victims recorded in the Diario Militar is paid in accordance with the distribution criteria established in paragraph 364 of the Judgment and within the two-year period established in paragraph 384 of the Judgment. B.3) Application of subparagraph (b) of paragraph 364 of the Judgment 63. The Court observes that the representatives asked how the expression “at the time of death,” in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 364, should be interpreted, in relation to the disappeared victims. 64. In this regard, the Court notes that, in its Judgment, it clarified and reiterated that forced disappearance of persons, inasmuch as it is a complex phenomenon of human rights violations, is continuing and permanent in nature, because it begins with the deprivation of the victim’s liberty and continues to be perpetrated until the whereabouts of the victim are known or, when applicable, his or her remains are reliably identified; at which time it can be considered that the violation has ceased. This continuing or permanent nature of forced disappearance has been recognized in Article III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, as well as in other international instruments, the jurisprudence of the European human rights system, decisions of the Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and decisions of high national courts. 27 Thus, in paragraph 191 of the Judgment, it is clearly stated that, “since 1988, the Court has established in its case law, the permanent or continuing nature of the forced disappearance of persons, which has been recognized repeatedly by international human rights law. 28 Also, in paragraph 195 of the Judgment, it is reiterated that “the permanent nature of forced disappearance means that it continues until the whereabouts of the disappeared person are known and his or her identity is determined with certainty”; hence, the forced “disappearance [of 24 disappeared victims] has not ceased, because their whereabouts or fate is still unknown.” 29 Similarly, in paragraphs 206 and 207 of the Judgment, it is clarified that, even though the Diario Militar apparently records the execution of 17 of the 26 disappeared victims in this case, in cases of forced disappearance where there are indications that the victim is deceased, the determination of whether this phenomenon has 25 Cf. International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (Arts.1 and 2 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994. Series A No. 14, para. 35; Case of De la Cruz Flores v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment and request for the adoption of provisional measures. Order of the Court of September 1, 2010, fifth considering paragraph; Case of Tristán Donoso v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of September 1, 2010, fifth considering paragraph, and Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Court of November 15, 2010, eleventh considering paragraph. 26 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Interpretation of the judgment on reparations. Judgment of May 29, 1999. Series C No. 51, para. 28. 27 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, footnote 182 and para. 193. 28 Case of Gudiel Álvarez (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 191. 29 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 195, citing: Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 59, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 112 and 113. 16