42 excuses it from taking responsibility, to decline its duty to investigate and punish those responsible.127 ii) Regarding Hugo Ticona Estrada 148. The Commission stated that “as has been established by the Bolivian courts though almost 28 years after the incidents- the State has the duty to investigate the torture alleged by Hugo Ticona so that it does not go unpunished". The representative requested the Court to “order the Bolivian State to conduct the corresponding criminal investigation to determine the responsibility of the perpetrators of such serious crime against humanity […] and that, if applicable, those [who are] convicted, serve the sentences imposed by the Bolivian Justice”. 149. As has been proven in this Judgment, the State did not guarantee the access to justice of Hugo Ticona, by not investigating the facts alleged by him (supra para. 98). 150. As has been previously established, the State has the duty to immediately and ex officio open an effective investigation to identify, try, and punish those responsible, when there is a complaint or there are grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed (supra para. 94). Therefore, this Tribunal observes that the judgment delivered on January 8, 2008 by the Third Circuit Criminal Court orders the forwarding of the case history to the Office of the Public Prosecutor, by virtue of the fact that “other criminal acts have been denounced, and against other people who are not involved in this procedure”. 151. The Court positively values this fact; however, it recalls that the State must initiate a serious and impartial investigation, in order to determine, within a reasonable time, the merits of the circumstances alleged herein. Therefore, the State may not invoke any domestic law or provision to exonerate itself from the Order of the Court to investigate and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the alleged facts. iii) Search of Renato Ticona 152. The Commission considered that, “the Bolivian State must locate and deliver to the family the mortal remains of Renato Ticona Estrada”. In addition, the representative requested the Court to order the State to “immediately initiate a search and location of the mortal remains of this disappeared person and, if found, without further delay, deliver them to his relatives, paying for all burial expenses that may correspond". 153. The State has informed that the Inter-Institutional Council for the Clarification of Forced Disappearances (CIEDEF) is actually developing a project which will shed light on the cases of forced disappearances that occurred between 1964- 1982, in a term of three years; said project was iniated on February 20, 2008 and is divided in three phases, the last one of them involves the search of disappeared people during the government of Luis García Meza. It also informed that said Project has been 127 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C Nº. 75, para. 41; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C Nº 154, para. 151; and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú, supra note 43, para. 226.