137. In that regard, the Court takes note, as it has in other cases, 168 that Colombia has a set of search mechanisms for missing persons. The Court observes that, in her statement before the Court at a public hearing, the witness Elsa María Moyano stated that there are both judicial and non-judicial bodies in Colombia responsible for searching for missing persons, and that these have trained staff and search strategies. These bodies are the Prosecutor General of the Nation and the Search Unit for Missing Persons. She also noted that they have a cooperative agreement and technical forums for joint work. Furthermore, the witness stated that although the National Search Plan was created by Law 589 in the year 2000, it is also necessary to “develop [...] strategies both for finding those criminally responsible and for finding the disappeared person” for cases that preceded the creation of that law. 169 138. Accordingly, the Court orders the State to reinforce the steps it is taking to find the victim. The State shall work diligently and through appropriate legal and/or administrative channels, making every effort to find Óscar Iván Tabares Toro or identify his remains without delay. To that end, the State shall marshal appropriate human, technical, and scientific resources and develop any forms of institutional collaboration that are found to be necessary or advantageous. As part of these efforts, State shall develop a family communication strategy and facilitate agreement on a framework for coordinated action in order to seek the family’s participation, knowledge, and presence, in accordance with the relevant guidelines and protocols, while maintaining appropriate protection measures. If it is determined that the victim is deceased, his remains shall be turned over to the family after conclusive confirmation of identity, without delay and at no cost to the family. Moreover, the State shall cover the funeral expenses, if applicable, by mutual agreement with the family members. 170 139. This Court notes that, based on “the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance 171 and other pertinent international instruments,” 172 the United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances adopted the “Guiding Principles for the Search for Disappeared Persons.” 173 The Court considers it important that they be taken into account in complying with the reparation measure ordered. The Court underscores the following in particular: a) The search for a disappeared person should continue until his or her fate and/or whereabouts have been determined with certainty, which means that the person “is again under the protection of the law” or, if found to be deceased, “has been fully identified.” 174 b) The victims’ relatives, who are also victims, and individuals who represent or assist them have the right to participate in the search, which necessitates, among other things, access to Cf. Case of Movilla Galarcio v. Colombia, supra, para. 205. See also the State’s final oral arguments during the public hearing of this case. 169 Statement of the witness Elsa María Moyano in the public hearing before the Court on November 8, 2022. 170 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, paras. 191 and 192, and Case of Movilla Galarcio v. Colombia, supra, para. 206. 171 Ratified by Colombia on July 11, 2012. It entered into force for the State on the thirtieth day after the date of the deposit of the instrument of ratification, pursuant to Article 39(2) of the convention. Cf. Case of Movilla Galarcio v. Colombia, supra, para. 207. 172 The document clarifies that the principles “also take into account the experience of other international bodies and various countries around the world” (Introduction, para. 1). Guiding principles for the search for disappeared persons, UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances, April 16, 2019. Cf. Case of Movilla Galarcio v. Colombia, supra, para. 207. 173 Approved by the Committee on Enforced Disappearances at its 16th session (April 8–18, 2019). Doc. CED/C/7. Cf. Case of Movilla Galarcio v. Colombia, supra, para. 207. 174 However, the document clarifies in Principle 7(4) that “[i]f the disappeared person has not been found and there is credible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of his or her fate or whereabouts, the search may be suspended when it is not physically possible to recover the person and once all obtainable information has been exhaustively analysed and all possible scenarios investigated. This decision should be taken in a transparent manner and requires the prior and informed consent of the family members or persons close to the disappeared person.” Likewise, the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances has noted that, although the right of relatives to know the truth of the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person is “not subject to any limitation or derogation,” “there is no absolute obligation of result,” because: “[i]n certain cases, clarification is difficult or impossible to attain, for instance when the body, for various reasons, cannot be found. [...] The State still has an obligation to investigate until it can determine by presumption the fate or whereabouts of the person.” (UN. Human Rights Council. Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances. Report of the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances. January 26, 2001. A/HRC/16/48. Para. 39 General comments General comment on the right to the truth in relation to enforced disappearance. No. 4). Cf. Case of Movilla Galarcio v. Colombia, supra, para. 207. 168 32