43 approved by instances within CIEDEF and its financing is guaranteed thanks to international cooperation. 154. The Court notes that, the relatives, by means of their statements agreed on mentioning the uncertainty about not knowing the fate of Renato Ticona. Furthermore, in the conclusions of the psychological expert opinion, it was determined that as long as there is uncertainty about whether Renato lives or is dead, the process of grief is impossible (supra para. 32(e)). 155. As has been established in this Judgment as part of the duty to investigate, the State must carried out an effective search of the victim’s whereabouts (supra para. 80) since the right of the victim's family to know the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared victim128 constitutes a measure of reparation and therefore, an expectation that the State must satisfy to them.129 It is of utmost importance for the relatives of the disappeared victim, the clarification of the whereabouts or fate of the victim, since by doing so, the relatives would be relieved from the anguish and suffering caused by the uncertainty about the whereabouts and fate of the disappeared loved one. 156. The Court positively values that the State is making efforts by means of the project that CIEDEF is developing, to shed light on the cases involving forced disappearances that occurred between 1964 and 1982, including the search of Renato Ticona. 157. Based on the foregoing, this Tribunal deems that for the purposes of the case at hand, the State shall promptly and effectively carry out a search of Renato Ticona. b) i) Satisfaction Publication of the Judgment 158. The representative requested as a measure of reparation, the publication of this Judgment in the Official Gazette of Bolivia and in a newspaper of national circulation, as well as the broadcasting of a summary of the Judgment by means of state means of communication. 159. To such regard, it should be mentioned that César Ticona Olivares, in his affidavit, declared that as a measure of a symbolic reparations he requested the Court “the publication of the judgment in a national newspaper” (supra para. 32(b)). 160. The Court deems appropriate, as ordered in other cases,130 that the State should publish at least once, in the Official Gazette and in another newspaper of wide national circulation, of chapter I, its heading and paragraphs 1 to 5; of chapter III; its heading and paragraph 12, 14, 22 to 27; chapter VI; of chapter VII, its heading and the corresponding subheadings and paragraphs 73 to 76, 82 to 85, 87 to 88, 128 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Perú, supra note 113, para. 90; and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 74, para. 171; and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú, supra note 43, para. 231. Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Perú. Supra note 108 para. 69; and Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay, supra note 74, para. 171; and Case of La Cantuta v. Perú, supra note 43, para. 231. 130 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavidez v. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C. Nº 88, para. 79; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 248; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 16, para. 179. 129