to understand how a certain fact could be considered […] in impunity” because it is not addressed in “one or two of those sections.” It added that “the period during which the investigations have been ongoing” cannot be considered in violation of the rights of the alleged victims “if it can be appreciated that […] the courts have put all their effort into clarifying the facts […] as comprehensively as possible.” A.3. Regarding the “delayed” codification of the criminal offense of forced disappearance of persons in the Argentine legal system 157. The Commission indicated that, although several former State intelligence agents were convicted in 2011 for crimes committed to the detriment of Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite, the ruling did not apply the criminal offense of forced disappearance, added to domestic legislation in 2011. It indicated that the ICFDP “entered into force in Argentina on February 28, 1996, giving rise to the obligation to codify the criminal offense of forced disappearance.” However, 15 years passed before the international obligation was fulfilled. It concluded that as a result of the “delay” in codifying the criminal offense, Argentina had violated Article III of the ICFDP. 158. The representative indicated that the State had for more than 15 years failed to comply with its obligation to codify the criminal offense of forced disappearance of persons, amounting to “an autonomous and separate violation.” 159. The State argued that “it would have been difficult to apply” the criminal offense codified in article 142(3) of the Penal Code in the judgment handed down on May 31, 2011, given the date on which the provision entered into force, that is, May 17, 2011. It indicated that the judgment “described […] each and every one of the elements comprising [the] forced disappearance of persons, applying the corresponding criminal offenses.” In this regard, the judges classified the conduct as crimes against humanity. It indicated that the sentence had been calculated based on the maximum provided for in article 142(3). 160. It added that the judgment in the “Systematic Plan” case classified the facts impacting Anatole and Victoria as forced disappearance, without prejudice to the application of the criminal offenses in force at the time of their commission. The fact that article 142(3) of the Penal Code was not applied “cannot be considered a violation of international law” since “the legal solution adopted amount[ed] to Convention enforcement that allowed [it] to throw out any challenge based claims of ex post facto application of criminal law.” A.4. On the search for the whereabouts of Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite and Mario Roger Julien Cáceres 161. The Commission indicated that the State has not used all means available to promptly carry forth the actions and investigations necessary to clarify the fate of the alleged victims. As for Julien Cáceres, there are indications that his remains were transferred to the general ossuary of the Municipal Cemetery of the Partido General de San Martín, which "no matter how serious they are, remain simply indications, such that they do not on their own constitute an unequivocal determination of the fate of the remains. It alleged that the State had referenced the completion of the work of the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team (hereinafter also “the EAAF”) without indicating “whether there were additional steps taken or the reason why the [c]ourt did not respond to the requests made by the representative” in that regard. 162. The representative indicated that the State had attached a report from the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team to the answering brief, which “they found surprising because […] it had not been requested by the judge […], but by [the representative of the State], without advising the judge or the Larrabeiti [Yáñez] siblings.” The representative indicated that through this “they learned of this important report that […] is mainly of interest to Anatole 43