88 observe said concurrence to pronounce itself properly and in conformity with the law. 308 A. Injured party 249. The injured party in this case is considered to be María Claudia García, María Macarena Gelman García and Juan Gelman. This has been recognized by the State, and is being declared in this judgment. B. Obligation to investigate the facts and to identify, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those responsible and adopt all the necessary domestic legislative measures B.1 those Investigation, prosecution and, where appropriate, punishment of responsible 250. The Commission, as well as the representatives requested that the State make a full, impartial, effective, and prompt investigation of the facts, in order to establish and sanction the intellectual and material perpetrators of all who participated in the events. 251. In addition to what was pointed out it the acknowledgment of responsibility, the State, in its final arguments, expressed that the present convincing administrative and judicial interpretation that has been given to the norm has led to the resounding lack of application of the law in this case, and in general, by the decisions of the Supreme Court “which evinces a radical change that has been put to use regarding the effects and the scope” of the Expiry Law. It also noted that the House of Representatives approved a bill that interprets the Expiry Law, which “suppresses [its] effects”, and which would “be handled within the Senate.” 252. The Court determines that, after assessing the proven facts and in conformity with the declared violations, the State must investigate the facts, and identify, prosecute, and where appropriate, punish those responsible for the enforced disappearance of María Claudia García Iruretagoyena and Maria Macarena Gelman. The latter, due to her abduction, suppression and substitution of her identify, as well as related facts.                                                          308 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 109, para. 110; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 246, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 210.