affirmed that “it maintains and reaffirms” that commitment. Regarding the determination of the whereabouts of Mr. González González and Mr. Tassino Asteazu, it stated that “even though there might be different versions on the matter, the search continues.” 219. The Court welcomes the information provided by the State on the search activities (supra paras. 32 to 39, 82, 83, 94 to 96, 134 and 218). It notes, as it has done previously,247 the desire of the victims’ next of kin to identify the whereabouts of the disappeared and, where appropriate, to know the location of their remains, to receive and bury them according to their beliefs, thus bringing closure to the mourning that they have undergone these past years, is a measure of reparation and, therefore, created a corresponding duty on the State to satisfy that expectation, in addition to providing valuable information on the perpetrators of the violations or the institution to which they belonged. 220. Consequently, as a measure of reparation of the victims’ right to know the truth, the State must undertake a rigorous judicial and administrative search in which it makes every effort to determine, as soon as possible, the whereabouts of Mr. Tassino Asteazu and Mr. González González, which must be done systematically and with the adequate and appropriate human, technical and scientific resources. To do so, it must establish a communications strategy with the next of kin and agree to a framework of coordinated action that seeks their participation, knowledge, and presence. If the victims or either of them have died, the mortal remains must be delivered to their families, after having been duly identified, as soon as possible and without any cost to them. In addition, the State must cover the funeral costs, if applicable, in agreement with the next of kin.248 C. Measures of rehabilitation 221. The Commission requested that the State be ordered to “implement an adequate program of assistance for the next of kin” of the five alleged disappeared or extrajudicially executed victims.249 222. The representatives joined the request of the Commission. 223. The State pointed out that, pursuant to “Law 18,033 of October 13, 2006 and the health coverage of the victims and their next of kin under Laws 18,033 and 18,596 including budgetarily. The State presented those reports (evidence file, annex XV to the answering brief, fs. 2675 to 2698) and underscored that, in February 2021, “the Senate adopted, together with the budget of the INDDHH- a draft budget for the search of the detained disappeared” It pointed out that the budgetary item assigned was that requested by the INDDHH” and that the draft budget has two objectives: (a) to guarantee coherence and continuity in the searches during the next five years and (b) to maintain the resources assigned to the searches at the level at which they were when the INDDHH began its work.” The State also presented the “strategic guidelines” for implementing Law 19,822 of 2019, which, among other aspects, assigns functions to the National Institute of Human Rights and to the Office of the Ombudsman for the search for disappeared persons (evidence file, annex XVII to the answering brief, fs. 2702 to 2711). 247 Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 258. Similarly, Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 260 and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, para. 564. 248 Regarding these measures, the Commission “notes that, according to the State, the family members of the five victims received some reparation under Law 18,596” and, although the Commission has no documentary evidence thereon, it considers that “the State may take it into account when determining the amount of compensation to be paid” due to the human rights violations declared in the Merits Report. 249 57