61 193. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to conduct an impartial, expeditious, serious and exhaustive search, and to make all possible efforts to determine the whereabouts of the victims as soon as possible. They argued that, if it is determined that the victims are alive, the State must assume the costs of reuniting the families and of providing adequate psychosocial care. In the event that their remains are found, the State must return these to their next of kin as soon as possible and cover the possible funeral expenses. The representatives also advised that the National Search Commission must be involved in these matters. In this regard, they enumerated several obstacles to the performance of its functions to investigate and determine the whereabouts and situation of the disappeared children, namely: (i) the lack of a strategy with its own lines of investigation; (ii) the absence of protocols to ensure the flow of information to the families; (iii) it has not used its powers to inspect de officio the State’s documentary records and archives; (iv) its mandate was due to expire on May 31, 2014; and (v) it does not have its own budget or logistic resources. Therefore, the representatives considered that the State should consolidate the said Commission through its creation by legislative decree. 194. For its part, the Commission asked the State to “adopt the measures required to ensure the effectiveness and continuation, for the time that is necessary, of the Search Commission, the search web page and the genetic information system that is being implemented in the context of the measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. In particular, it must ensure that these measures are ordered through legal mechanisms that guarantee their juridical security and the necessary budgetary allocation.” 195. The State acknowledged its obligation to investigate the fate or whereabouts of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, which would be carried out through the National Search Commission. Consequently, it reaffirmed its commitment to ensure the continuity of that Commission. In its final arguments, the State reported in detail on the background, creation and work carried out by the National Search Commission, indicating that the decree that created it was amended on February 19, 2014, modifying its period of validity for an indefinite term, along with other aspects of its operation. The State also indicated that it did not object to the representatives’ request, since the current terms do not exclude the possibility of consolidating the establishment of this Commission by ordering its creation via Legislative Decree. Considerations of the Court 196. It has been established in the instant case that José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala remain disappeared, and that the State has not provided information to effectively determine their fate or whereabouts or to ensure their reliable identification to date (supra para. 93). The Court stresses that these victims disappeared approximately 30 years ago, so it is reasonable for their families to expect that their whereabouts be determined. This constitutes a measure of reparation and, therefore, gives rise to the correlative obligation of the State to meet it.296 It would also alleviate the families’ anguish and suffering caused by the uncertainty.297 197. Consequently, the State must conduct a thorough search, as soon as possible, making every effort to determine the whereabouts of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala. The search must be Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 69, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, supra, para. 249. 296 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra, para. 155, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru, supra, para. 249. 297