75. Based on the foregoing considerations and the proven facts in the instance case, the Commission observes that although proceedings were conducted in domestic courts that ended in convictions both in the trial to determine liabilities and in the ordinary criminal proceeding initiated in 1999, to this day light has not fully been shed on what happened to the alleged victim, and even the whereabouts of his remains are unknown, due to the use of multiple cover-up mechanisms. Furthermore, non-judicial initiatives, such as actions taken by CIADEF have also failed to produce results in the search for the whereabouts of the victim in the instant case. 76. Regarding the cover-up mechanisms, the IACHR deems it relevant to refer to the findings of the ordinary criminal proceeding, which ended in a conviction handed down by the Second Criminal Enforcement Court in 2007. As established in the proven facts section, the judicial authorities themselves identified and recognized the serious obstacles created to achieving true insight into what happened, particularly the "pact of silence" embraced by those alleged to be responsible, that is to say, the military and police officers who remained on active duty after the coup d’état. The Commission reiterates that in processing the instant case internally the Bolivian State adopted those judicial findings regarding concealment of information by the aforementioned officials. It is therefore clear to the Commission that the impossibility of locating the whereabouts of Mr. Flores Bedregal following the armed assault on the COB, so that his family members might be certain as to what his ultimate fate, stems directly from the refusal of State agents to provide that information and the inadequacy of the methods adopted to achieve that outcome. 77. Indeed, Resolution No. 129 of 2007 made it clear that there were a number of contradictions in the testimonies of officials involved in the aforementioned criminal proceeding. Thus, different places were mentioned as the place where the remains of the alleged victim had been taken. The most concrete explanation taken from that judicial ruling and which the State adopted as its position vis-a-vis the Commission is that after being murdered along with Marcelo Quiroga Santa Cruz, the bodies had been taken to the district known as "Mallasa," then taken to the morgue, from where they disappeared, without "any information at all to this day about the exact whereabouts of their remains." Thus, actions subsequent to the armed assault on the COB by State authorities make it possible to establish that said acts were designed to get rid of evidence of what happened and to generate uncertainty as to the whereabouts of the victim and as to whether he was alive or dead. In addition, as analyzed below, State authorities also did not guarantee direct and timely access by family members of Mr. Flores Bedregal to all the information in military archives needed to ascertain the whereabouts of the victim and the truth about what happened. 78. In light of the above, the Commission considers that the third prerequisite for forced disappearance is given in the instant case and that the existence of circumstantial evidence about the death of Mr. Flores Bedregal does not alter that legal characterization of the facts. As of this day, his family members have no information about or access to his remains, such as would give them certainty as to his fate. As mentioned earlier, according to inter-American jurisprudence, this is what distinguishes extrajudicial execution from forced disappearance, the cover-up factor being obvious in the instant case. 79. Therefore, the IACHR finds that Bolivian State violated and continues to violate the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment/personal integrity, personal liberty, personality, a fair trial/judicial guarantees and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 8.1, and 25.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Article 1(1) of that instrument, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. The Commission likewise concludes that the State violated Articles 1 a) and b) of the IACFDP to the detriment of the same person, bearing in mind that both at the time that treaty was ratified by the Bolivian State and to this day the forced disappearance of Mr. Flores Bedregal was being, and continues to be, committed. 21