to close the investigation (supra para. 160). Even if the Special Court’s conclusion is adopted as the main hypothesis concerning the events, the State had the obligation to investigate and to elucidate the facts relating to the supposed deaths of the disappeared victims, as well as to take all necessary measures to discover the whereabouts of these persons. As of 1986, when the Special Investigative Court’s report was issued, and up until 2001, when the Prosecution Service opened an investigation, no judicial authority investigated the disappearance of these persons, or took any measures to discover their whereabouts. Indeed, in the complaint filed before the Prosecution Service in 2001, the next of kin stated that the investigation opened following the report of the Special Investigative Court, “never sought to establish or identify those responsible by act or omission for the disappearance of [their] family members, or their fate, but merely established the masterminds and perpetrators of the taking of the Palace of Justice.” 733 Moreover, the next of kin of the disappeared victims have indicated that, after the report of the Special Investigative Court presumed the death of their loved ones, the State authorities did not open investigations, denying that anyone was disappeared. 734 474. The absence of an investigation ex officio was particularly serious in the cases of the forced disappearance of Irma Franco Pineda and the torture suffered by Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino. The Court underlines that, as of 1986, the Special Investigative Court concluded that Irma Franco Pineda had been the victim of forced disappearance; then, in 1988, the Attorney General’s office also concluded that she had been forcibly disappeared and, in 1990, the Special Attorney assigned to the Military Forces established a disciplinary sanction against the Colonel, Head of the B-2, for this disappearance (supra paras. 158, 169 and 211). The investigations were referred to the military criminal jurisdiction, where it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence of the responsibility of the Colonel, Head of the B-2; therefore the proceedings were ended in 1994 and, from then until 2001, no investigation into this forced disappearance was opened under the ordinary justice system. Also, in the case of the detention and torture suffered by Yolanda Santodomingo and Eduardo Matson, the Court points out that, in 1986, the Special Court concluded that “they were subjected to ill-treatment by their interrogators” and, in 1990, disciplinary actions were instituted in this regard. However, after the military criminal justice system had closed the investigation in 1993, no further investigations were opened until 2007, when the victims testified before the Prosecution Service, during the investigation into those who were disappeared. 475. This Court has already indicated that, when a forced disappearance occurs, it must be considered and treated as a wrongful act that may result in the imposition of sanctions on anyone who commits, instigates, or conceals it, or in any way participates in its perpetration. Consequently, whenever there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been subjected to enforced disappearance, a criminal investigation must be opened. 735 This obligation is independent of whether a complaint is filed because, in cases of enforced disappearance, international law and the general obligation to ensure rights impose the obligation to investigate the case ex officio, without delay, and in a serious, impartial and effective manner; thus, it does not depend on the procedural initiative of the victim or his next of kin or on the provision of evidence by private individuals. 736 In any 733 Complaint of June 21, 2001, filed before the Prosecutor General (evidence file, folio 22748). 734 Cf. Testimony of César Rodríguez Vera during the public hearing on the merits in this case. 735 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 65, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 178. 736 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 178. 166