The State shall conduct, as soon as possible, a rigorous and systematic search using the appropriate human, technical and financial resources, during which it makes every effort to 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. 18. Based on the request of the representatives, the Court considers it pertinent to recall that it is necessary for the parties to read the judgment in its entirety and not consider each paragraph of the judgment as if it were independent of the rest. 9 In this regard, the joint reading of paragraphs 298 to 300, in light of what is established in operative paragraph 10 of the judgment, gives the criteria ordered by this Court to comply with the measure of reparation related to the obligation to determine the whereabouts of the victims. Based on the foregoing, this Court does not consider it relevant to outline further considerations in this regard. B. Regarding the scope and timeline related to the measure of reparation about the National Register of Missing and Disappeared Persons B.1. Arguments of the parties and the Commission 19. The representatives highlighted that the use of the term “recommends” in paragraph 325 of the judgment10 causes confusion regarding the scope of the obligation contained in said paragraph, in light of what was resolved in operative paragraph 16.11 In this regard, they detailed a series of questions generated by the phrasing used: a. How should the term “recommends” be understood and what is the scope in this paragraph of the order of the Honorable Court in light of the obligation contained in operative paragraph 16 of the same ruling? b. Which of the criteria provided for in paragraph 325 are necessary for the measures analyzed by the Illustrious Mexican State to constitute “adequate measures to create a single updated register of disappeared persons”? c. Although the Honorable Court establishes that the State must report on this issue in its annual compliance report (in similarity with all the reparations ordered, except those related to operative paragraph 14), we consider that it would be very important to define a specific deadline for the State to analyze the suitability of the measures to create the aforementioned registry and, if applicable, the type of follow-up that this Court will carry out on the information provided by the condemned State. 20. For the above reasons, they requested that the scope of said measure be clarified, in order to generate certainty for the parties. 9 Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2017. Series C No. 335, para. 26. Paragraph 325: Although the representatives were not clear in their arguments regarding this measure of non-repetition, the Court recommends […] that the State, within its actual legal framework, analyze adequate measures to create a single updated register of disappeared persons that generates statistics, disaggregated by sex, age, place, and authorities presumably involved, and that allows for the clear determination of the cases that are related to “forced disappearances,” in order to devise comprehensive and coordinated public policies for the prevention, investigation, punishment and elimination of this practice. To this end, in its annual report, the State must inform the Court on the adoption of such measures. 10 Operative paragraph 16: The State shall analyze the appropriate measures to create a single and updated list of disappeared persons which generates statistical data that allows cases of “forced disappearances” to be determined clearly, pursuant to paragraph 325 of this judgment. 11 5