guarantees and protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and with the provisions of Article III of the IACFP. B.3. Search for the whereabouts or remains of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, and his family’s right to know the truth 117. On many occasions, the Court has ruled on the obligation of States to carry out a serious, systematic, and rigorous search to find the whereabouts of disappeared persons or their remains, using adequate and competent human, technical, and scientific resources. 165 Returning the body of a disappeared person is extremely important for their family, because it allows for proper burial them in keeping with their beliefs, and also to bring closure to the grieving process that they have been experiencing over the years. 166 118. The Court has also indicated that the State bodies responsible for investigating the forced disappearance of persons – the purpose of which is the determination of their whereabouts and clarification of what happened, the identification of those responsible, and their possible punishment – must perform their task diligently and thoroughly. 167 In cases of forced disappearances, the obligation to investigate is reinforced by the obligations established in the respective norms of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, 168 among which it is worth mentioning, because it is relevant in this case, the one prescribed in article I, paragraph b), referring to the duty to punish the crime of forced disappearance or its attempt. 119. There is no conclusive information on the whereabouts or fate of the remains of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal in this case. The available information indicates that in February and April of 1983, two exhumations of remains were carried out, determining that they did not belong to Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. Another exhumation was scheduled for March of that same year but ultimately did not take place. In 1992, the remains exhumed in 1983 were again exhumed at the request of the Flores Bedregal sisters to be examined by the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team, who determined that they were not those of the alleged victim (supra para. 68). In addition, in 2003, the Institutional Council for the Clarification of forced disappearances (CIEDEF, from the Spanish) was set up to investigate forced disappearances during the period of 1964-1982. There is no information as to whether this institution took any steps to locate the whereabouts or remains of Mr. Flores Bedregal. Subsequently, the State reported that on September 8, 2021, the prosecutor in charge made "a computer statement complementary to [MFC] known as "the gravedigger" in order to have more information about the whereabouts of the remains of Flores Bedregal and other victims of the 165 Cf. Inter alia, Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 191; Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 334; Case of Garcia and family v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012 Series C No. 258, para. 200; Case of Osorio Rivera and family v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 251; and Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355, para. 104; and Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360, para. 203; Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Series No. 370, para. 299, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 74; Case of Julien Grisonas family v. Argentina, supra, para. 209, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 206. 166 Cf. Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 245, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 219. 167 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of the Los Josefinos Village Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 101. 168 Cf. Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 181, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 137. 37