68 Peruvian Army when they went to the Headquarters of the Political and Military Command to deliver a letter; iv) it received official letter No. 467-91-FPM-Hvca of July 18, 1991, reporting on the removal of the corpses carried out that day together with the Examining Magistrate. 224. Furthermore, despite the fact that on July 12, 1991, the Administrative Council of Santa Bárbara informed the Mixed Provincial Prosecutor’s Office of Huancavelica of the discovery of the victims’ remains and requested the removal of their bodies – a request that was reiterated to said Office on July 17, 1991 - it was not until July 18, 1991, that the remains were removed, that is, two weeks after the events occurred, ten days after the complaint was filed and six days after the discovery was reported (supra paras. 98 to 101). In addition, this Court has already pointed out that it is not known what happened to the evidence collected on that occasion and that for more than 23 years the State has made no effort to locate the remains (supra para. 176). 225. The Court has also established that the Special Attorney’s Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman received complaints from Nicolás Hilario Morán, president of the Administrative Council of the community of Santa Bárbara, and Máximo Pérez Torres, treasurer of its municipal agency, on July 17, 1991, and from Alejandro Huamaní Robles on July 23 and August 2 of the same year. The same individuals also filed complaints before the Minister of Defense, the former on July 17, and Mr. Huamaní on August 5, 1991. Finally, Mr. Huamaní also filed a complaint on July 18 with the Office of the Huancavelica Senior Prosecutor (supra paras. 100 and 102). There is no record in the case file of the actions taken by these entities in response to the aforementioned complaints. 226. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in cases of alleged forced disappearance, it is essential that the prosecutorial and judicial authorities take immediate action, ordering timely and necessary measures to determine the whereabouts of the victim or the place where he or she is being detained. 251 227. Likewise, for an investigation into an alleged forced disappearance to be carried out effectively and with due diligence, the authorities in charge must use all necessary means to promptly carry out those actions and inquiries that are essential and timely to clarify the fate of the victims. 252 On several occasions, this Court has ruled on the obligation of the States to conduct a thorough search, using the appropriate judicial or administrative mechanisms, in which every effort is made, systematically and rigorously, with the adequate and appropriate human, technical and scientific resources, to establish the whereabouts of the disappeared persons. 253 In this case, there is no evidence that, once the corresponding authorities were informed of the events that had occurred, they immediately adopted the necessary search measures to find the missing persons. Furthermore, the State has not demonstrated that the authorities who received the reports of the detention and disappearance of fifteen members of the community of Santa Bárbara have carried out basic procedures such as inspecting the place where these villagers lived and where their homes were burned. 228. In addition, in this case, the reports made by various members of the community of Santa Bárbara indicated that the disappeared victims had been detained by military personnel and, subsequently, that their remains were found in the “Misteriosa” or “Vallarón” mine. Therefore, the duty of due diligence in the investigation of these facts included a correct handling of the crime Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 134, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 14, 2014. Series C No. 285, para. 139. 252 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 174, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family Members v. Peru, supra, para. 182. 253 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 334, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 480. 251