203. In the end, the domestic processes have revealed the planned and coordinated participation of members of the security, police, and military forces, the intelligence services, and in one case, even the involvement of someone at the highest levels of government at the time of the facts, clearly indicating the extreme seriousness of what happened. All of this shows that, regardless of the nomen iuris of the criminal offense charged and effectively applied at the time of conviction, the investigation was carried out and aimed at determining factual circumstances that coincide with elements of the crime of forced disappearance. In short, as regards the crimes committed against Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite, Anatole, and Victoria, the failure to apply the autonomous criminal offense has not meant that the facts have gone unpunished. 229 204. Regarding the punishments considered in those processes, the Court recalls that current criminal law in Argentina establishes, for those guilty of the crime of forced disappearance, a prison sentence of 10 to 25 years and absolute and perpetual disqualification from the exercise of any public function or private security tasks, as well as life imprisonment “if the victim is a […] person under [eighteen] (18) years of age” (article 142(3) of the Penal Code, Law 11,179). Therefore, the penalties actually applied in the cases in question are consistent with the seriousness of the conduct committed. 205. Next, as regards the facts causing harm to Julien Cáceres, the Court notes that the investigation carried out 230 and the corresponding acquittal specifically addressed the fact of the death of the alleged victim, through prosecution of the criminal offense of “aggravated homicide with malice aforethought,” without taking into account other concurrent elements, such as the deprivation of liberty and the measures taken by the perpetrators to deny information about the incident and erase all traces of what happened to the body. The judges who handed down the acquittal even concluded that it was not possible to “find that the murder was part of the ‘shared plan’ designed by the State’s repressive forces, within the framework of the ‘anti-subversive struggle.'” 231 206. This view, in the opinion of this Court, shows that, in the analysis of these facts—unlike what happened with the rest of the members of the Julien Grisonas family—the actions of the domestic authorities were not appropriate to the seriousness of what happened, the context in which it happened, and ultimately, the complex violation of human rights that the forced disappearance of persons entails. In short, the failure to apply the autonomous criminal offense of forced disappearance led to an approach to the facts that was isolated and fragmented, rather than comprehensive in addressing the offense’s multiple, intricately interrelated elements. 232 The outcome has been that to date, the facts have not been clarified, nor has there been any punishment for what happened to the detriment of Julien Cáceres. 207. Lastly, because resolution of the judicial process is still pending, the Court deems it 1604, 1584, 1730, and 1772 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 18 to the answering brief, folio 14804). 229 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Vereda La Esperanza v. Colombia, supra, par. 207. 230 The indictment in which the facts were classified as "aggravated homicide" was issued on July 12, 2012, and the corresponding order to “proceed to trial" reiterating that legal classification was issued on September 25, 2013. Cf. Order of July 17, 2020 issued by the National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 14 to the answering brief, folio 11002). Additionally, the plaintiff indicated at the time that the applicable classification was that of forced disappearance. Cf. Brief filed on November 19, 2012 by Eduardo Marques Iraola, on behalf of Anatole Alejandro Larrabeiti Yáñez, before Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3, case No. 2637/04 (evidence file, volume I, annex 4 to the Report on the Merits, folio 1449). 231 Cf. Judgment issued by Federal Oral Criminal Court No. 1 on November 3, 2017, cases 2261 and 2390 (evidence file, volume IV, annex 13 to the answering brief, folios 10771, 10779, 10780, 10783, and 10784). 232 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra, para. 112, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico, supra, par. 166. See Human Rights Council, Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on norms and public policies for effectively investigating enforced disappearances, General comment on enforced disappearance as a continuing offense, UN Doc. A/HRC/4/13/Add.3, August 7, 2020, par. 51. 54