should refer not only to paragraphs 2475 and 3006 of the Judgment, but also directly to paragraph 299, based on the obligation to carry out a rigorous, systematic search with adequate resources. 14. They considered that the obligation contained in paragraph 299 on the responsibility of the State to “[…] prepare a search timetable and, in its next annual report, inform the Court of the results of the actions undertaken” 7 is a differentiated measure within the same category as that contained in paragraph 300.8 Because of this, in their opinion, operative paragraph 10 should refer directly to both paragraph 300 and 299, to generate “[...] certainty in the parties both in the obligation to immediately search for the victims and to present a search schedule […].” Thus, they requested that the Court define the content and scope of the reparation ordered through operative paragraph 10, in light of both paragraph 299 and paragraph 300 of the judgment. 15. The State considered that what is referred to in operative paragraph 10, as well as its direct reference to paragraph 299, does not affect the development and timing of the investigation. Rather, on the contrary, it allows planning for the development of the proceedings and determining the availability of the interdisciplinary team that will intervene in such prospecting proceedings. For this reason, the State considered that, by not expressly referring to paragraph 299 in operative paragraph 10, the legitimate interest of the victims is not affected, since the judgment itself orders that the measures to be carried out must be made known to the indirect victims and their representatives. 16. For its part, the Commission considered that said request is valid insofar as the paragraph in question ordered the State to develop a search schedule for the victims and include it in its annual report to the Court, and operative paragraph 10 made no reference to said paragraph and does not reflect that the State has such an obligation. For this reason, the Commission considered it pertinent for the Court to clarify the scope of operative paragraph 10. A.2. Considerations of the Court 17. In its Judgment, the Court resolved through its operative paragraph 10 that: determine the whereabouts of Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes and José Ángel Alvarado Herrera, pursuant to paragraphs 247 and 300 of this judgment. Paragraph 247: In short, the above-mentioned deficiencies in the investigation constitute a violation of the State’s obligation to conduct a serious, impartial, effective and thorough investigation, which has contributed to the fact that, to date, the victims have not been found, and the perpetrators of the forced disappearances have not been identified. This violates Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and also Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, to the detriment of Nitza Paola, Rocío Irene and José Ángel Alvarado and the direct members of their families (infra para. 265). 5 Paragraph 300: In the eventuality that the victims are deceased, their mortal remains must be returned to their families, after genetic testing to verify the relationship, as soon as possible and without any cost to them. In addition, the State must cover the funeral costs, as agreed with the families. 6 Paragraph 299: Consequently, the State must make every effort to ensure a thorough search using the appropriate judicial and/or administrative means to determine the whereabouts of the disappeared as soon as possible, and this must be conducted systematically and rigorously, and be provided with the appropriate human, technical and scientific resources. The families must be kept informed of these procedures and, to this end, the State must prepare a search timetable and, in its next annual report, inform the Court of the results of the actions undertaken. 7 8 Supra, note 6. 4