214. With respect to the extrajudicial executions of the three women, the State must take action to observe the perspective of gender, in accordance with the guidelines presented in this judgment (supra paras. 156 to 158). 215. Additionally, the results of the relevant proceedings must be made public so that Uruguayan society is aware the facts of this case, as well as who was responsible.245 B.2 Determination of the whereabouts of Luis Eduardo González González and Óscar Tassino Asteazu 216. The Commission, with respect to the victims of forced disappearance, requested that Uruguay be ordered “to thoroughly, impartially and effectively investigate their whereabouts” and, where appropriate, “take all necessary steps to identify their remains and deliver them to family members in the manner they desire.” It underscored the importance that there be a “specific plan to search for the two disappeared victims.” 217. The representative agreed with the request of the Commission. It asked that the State be ordered “to investigate by maximizing the adequate judicial and/or administrative efforts to determine, as soon as possible, the whereabouts of the disappeared persons.” It also requested that “a systematic and rigorous search be conducted, with all of the adequate, appropriate, and necessary human, technical and scientific resources.” 218. The State, in its answer, argued that “it had maintained a consistent commitment and action plan” to investigate “within all the possible factual possibilities” the whereabouts of the victims of forced disappearance and to identify and deliver to the next of kin their mortal remains, if found.”246 Uruguay, in its final written arguments, Cf. Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela, para. 118, Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 16, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 217, Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, para. 238 and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations, para. 256. 245 The State referred to diverse general policies that are not directly related to the case. In the first place, it alluded to the Investigative Commission, created in 1985, and the Peace Commission, established in 2000 (supra paras. 33 to 36). It added the following: (i)- Resolution 832/006, of December 26, 2006, ordered the publication of the reports of the Commanders-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the University of the Republic and marked June 19 of each year as “a day to commemorate that these episodes shall never again occur amongst Uruguayans.” (ii)- Resolution 297/007, of May 14, 2007, ordered the printing of the “Historic Investigation on the Detained Disappeared to comply with Article 4 of Law 15,848.” (iii)- Pursuant to the judgment of the Inter-American Court in the Gelman case, Resolution 450/011, of August 31, 2011, ordered the creation of an Inter-Ministerial Commission under the Presidency of the Republic and, on December 4, 2011, Resolution 805/013 adopted a “Protocol of Procedures to follow in the search, recuperation and analysis of the remains of the detained disappeared persons.” (iv)- Decree 131/015, of May 19, 2015, created the Truth and Justice Working Group, with the basic purpose of investigating crimes against humanity and contributing to the historical truth and the promotion of justice, establishing the Secretariat of Human Rights for the Recent Past as its “functional and administrative support.” (v)- On October 14, 2019, the Truth and Justice Working Group presented its final report (cf. Evidence file, annex XIX to the answering brief, fs. 2973 to 2995). (vi)- “Similarly, the Investigative Group in Forensic Anthropology has published various reports (the State remitted copies of the “Report(s) on Activities” of 2005, of 2005-2010 and of 2013 and 2014 (evidence file, annex XXI to the answering brief, fs. 3111 to 3774)). (vii)- On September 18, 2019, Law 19,822 was enacted, which charged the INDDHH, which is independent of the Executive Branch, with “the search for the detained and disappeared persons” during the dictatorship. It has already published two reports, one on May 18, 2020 and the other on October 7 of the same year, which show that “the search for the mortal remains of the detained disappeared is a true policy of the State of Uruguay,” whose “long term” continuity is guaranteed, 246 56