37 about the manner in which Mr. Gómez-Palomino was arrested and murdered, as well as about the possible location of his remains. Likewise, statements by Mrs. Victoria Margarita Palomino-Buitrón, Mrs. María Elsa Chipana-Flores, and Mrs. Esmila Liliana Conislla-Cárdenas and by Mr. Arcenio Antenor Gutiérrez-León were also received. The prosecutrix appointed to the investigation requested authorization from the National Public Prosecutrix to conduct excavations and to perform the exhumation of Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino’s remains, which were finally carried out on November 13 and 19, 2003 near La Chira beach in Chorrillos, approximately one year after the initial request. However, Mr. Santiago GómezPalomino’s remains were not found. 83. Likewise, it has been held as established that, on December 11, 2002, Mrs. Victoria Margarita Palomino-Buitrón filed a criminal complaint with the Fiscalía Provincial Especializada (Specialized Provincial Office of the Prosecutor) against Mr. Vladimiro Montesinos-Torres et al. for the alleged abduction and forced disappearance of her son, Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino, which was referred to the División de Investigaciones Especiales de la Dirección contra el Terrorismo (Special Investigations Division of the Department of Counterterrorism) (supra para. 54.17). 84. In the instant case, the documentation regarding the current status of the investigations or other proceedings conducted as part of them, other than those already established, has not been made available to the Court although such information was requested from the State and the representatives as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, pursuant to Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 17). In this regard, the Court recalls that it must have all the information regarding proceedings, in order to be able to conduct a thorough examination of all domestic judicial proceedings as a whole, to reach a complete view thereof and to determine whether such proceedings are contrary to the standards regarding the rights to a fair trial, to judicial protection and to an effective remedy, enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.62 Since the State has failed to provide evidence of any other steps taken over these past years as part of the investigation into Mr. Gómez-Palomino’s forced disappearance, in support of its defense arguments, this Court finds that those before it are the only steps and inquiries undertaken by the State in the instant case, based on the proven facts (supra paras. 54.14 to 54.19) and the allegations made by the Commission and the representatives. 85. Therefore, the Court finds that the investigation undertaken by the Fiscalía Provincial Especializada de Lima (Specialized Provincial Office of the Prosecutor of Lima) has not been conducted in a duly diligent manner so as to lead to discover the facts, to determine the location of the victim’s remains and to prosecute those responsible for his forced disappearance, for which reasons it may not be deemed effective in terms of the Convention. Furthermore, the deficiencies in the investigation that occurred right after Mr. Gómez-Palomino’s forced disappearance and that have been accepted as such by the State may hardly be cured by the belated and insufficient evidence gathering activities the State has carried out since 62 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 198; Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 3, para. 143; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz sisters, supra note 51, paras. 57 and 58.