on the specific context and circumstances of the case. 255 In this case, after 45 years, the whereabouts and fate of the remains of Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite remain unknown, and there is no conclusive information regarding the remains of Mario Roger Julien Cáceres. Since the necessary efforts have not been made to apply all due diligence to ascertain the fate and, where applicable, locate the remains of Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite, and in view of the lack of response to the requests made to advance the efforts toward searching for the remains of Julien Cáceres and the subsequent failure to communicate, properly and in a timely fashion, a technical document with detailed information responding to the requests, this Court finds that the right to know the truth has been violated, to the detriment of Anatole and Victoria, son and daughter of Julien Grisonas. In this case, the violation falls under the rights to access to justice and to be informed, made aware of, and participate in the search efforts that protect the relatives of disappeared persons. B.4. General conclusion 222. Based on all this, the Court concludes that: (a) there was an excessive and unjustified delay in processing the legal actions initiated to prosecute and punish the acts committed to the detriment of Victoria Lucía Grisonas Andrijauskaite and her children, Anatole and Victoria; (b) regarding the acts perpetrated against Mr. Mario Roger Julien Cáceres, 45 years after his forced disappearance began, the trial and punishment of those responsible remains pending; (c) the State’s delay in codifying the criminal offense of forced disappearance of persons resulted in a failure to apply it in this specific case, affecting investigation and punishment of the incidents that harmed Julien Cáceres; (d) all necessary efforts with the proper due diligence have not been made to clarify the whereabouts and, where applicable, locate the remains of Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite; (e) the requests made to advance the search for the remains of Julien Cáceres were not answered; and (f) the son and daughter of the Julien Cáceres couple were not informed properly and in a timely manner of a technical document with detailed information answering their requests regarding the search for the remains of both persons. 223. Therefore, the Argentine State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and Articles I(b) and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of Anatole Alejandro and Claudia Victoria, both with the surnames Larrabeiti Yáñez. Likewise, the State violated the rights of both persons to know the truth concerning the whereabouts and fate of the remains of their biological father and mother. 224. However, the State is not responsible for failing to comply with the obligations derived from Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT, or for the alleged failure to respect the prohibition on applying amnesties or other obstacles to prosecuting and punishing crimes against humanity. VII.3 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION AS REGARDS REPARATIONS FOR GRAVE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW 256 225. The Court will now analyze the following issues: (a) non-applicability of the statute of limitations on actions to obtain redress for serious human rights violations, and (b) administrative mechanisms for providing reparations for serious human rights violations. Cf. Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru, supra, par. 265, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 86. 256 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument. 255 59