72 obligation subsists until the circumstances of the death of Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas are judiciary determined. This should also result in the investigation being aimed also at determining the corresponding responsibilities, taking into account the specific context in which the facts occurred. The Court has already referred to this extensively in this judgment (supra para. 171). Given that no investigation has been carried out into what happened to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas based on the analysis of his remains, or those possibly responsible, the Court finds that the State violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention. * * * 226. Based on the above, the Court finds that the domestic criminal proceedings have not constituted an effective remedy to guarantee: (a) access to justice, the investigation and eventual punishment of those responsible for the facts related to the forced disappearance of Messrs. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña within a reasonable time; (b) the investigation of the latter’s whereabouts and the investigation of what happened to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, and c) the integral reparation of the consequences of these violations. Consequently, the Court concludes, based on the foregoing and the extensive acquiescence of the State, that Bolivia is responsible for violating the judicial guarantees and judicial protection embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Martha Castro Mendoza and of Rebeca, Tito and Raquel, all bearing the last name Ibsen Castro, as well as failure to comply with the obligation embodied in Article I(b) of the Convention on Forced Disappearance. VIII RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION (ARTICLE 24 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) 227. The representatives alleged that they had not received any support and advisory assistance from the Bolivian Ombudsman and stressed that he had sponsored another case before the Inter-American system. They also indicated that the Senate of the Republic had granted a pension for life to the widows of the Mirista leaders who were murdered on January 15, 1981. Lastly, they alleged that, in Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia, the State “from the outset” acknowledged its international responsibility, while in the instant case, it withdrew from the friendly settlement procedure and continued opposing the processing of the case, causing greater pain, anguish and desperation to the petitioner family. 228. The Court has already indicated that the presumed victim, his next of kin, or his representatives can invoke rights other than those included in the Commission’s application based on the facts submitted by the latter.260 Applying this jurisprudence to the specific case, it can be observed that the facts referred to by the representatives relating to the State’s withdrawal from the friendly settlement procedure and to the supposed pension for life for the widows of the Mirista leaders do not form part of the factual basis of the application. Consequently, the Court will not examine them or rule on them. 229. Nevertheless, regarding the argument concerning the lack of support and advice from the Ombudsman, the Court observes that, in the application, the Commission indicated in general that, on December 20, 2002 “Mr. Tito Ibsen Castro addressed the 260 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, supra note 164, Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 33, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 49.