military dictatorship," and that on December 16 and 17, 2021, two technical visual inspections were carried out at the Provincial Terminal of the city of El Alto and in the General Cemetery of La Paz, respectively, as possible burial sites for victims of the military dictatorship. No results were obtained from these proceedings (supra para. 69). Based on the foregoing, without ignoring the complexity involved in the search for a disappeared person in contexts such as the instant case, the Court considers that the State's obligation to investigate the whereabouts and, if necessary, locate the remains of Mr. Flores Bedregal, cannot be exhausted in a formality or in the historical context that he was a victim of the 1980 coup d'état. To act consistently with its duty to perform due diligence, the State must make every effort systematically, rigorously, and with adequate and appropriate means, 169 including by requesting international cooperation. 170 120. 121. The Court emphasizes the autonomous nature of the obligation to search for and locate disappeared persons, 171 which must be fulfilled in an efficient, comprehensive, adequate, and diligent manner. 172 This autonomous obligation is closely related to the right of family members to know the truth about the fate of their loved ones. Based on the above, this Court concludes that the State failed to comply with its obligation to conduct a systematic, rigorous, and due diligence search for the whereabouts of Mr. Flores Bedregal or his remains. B.4. General conclusion 122. In view of the above, the Court concludes that: (a) there was a lack of observance of due diligence with respect to the conducting of the criminal investigation and proceedings; (b) there was an excessive and unjustified delay in the conduct of the proceedings to investigate, prosecute, and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for the facts; (c) more than four decades after the beginning of the forced disappearance of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, the trial and eventual punishment of those responsible is still pending; d) the State failed to comply with its obligation to adopt provisions or measures at its domestic level to protect and ensure the validity of the rights violated as a result of the forced disappearance of the victim, and e) all necessary efforts have not been made to clarify the whereabouts of the victim or locate his remains, in violation to their relatives’ right to the truth. 123. Consequently, this Court considers that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, as well as the right to know the truth, and Articles I(b) and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Verónica, Eliana Isbelia, Liliam Teresa, and Olga Beatriz Flores Bedregal. 169 151. Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 191, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, para. Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series No. 221, para. 234, and Case of Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 213. 171 Cf. Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 75, and Case of Julien Grisonas family v. Argentina, supra, para. 214. 172 See, Committee on forced disappearances, Guiding Principles for the Search for Disappeared Persons, U.N. Doc. CED/C/7, May 8, 2019, Principles 1, 4 to 8, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 16; and Case of Julien Grisonas Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 214. 170 38