personal freedom, personal integrity and life, in relation to the obligation to respect established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, and Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, since the forced disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán has been proved and the State has recognized its international responsibility for the violations involved in the recognition. 64. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Mr. Garzón Guzmán was the victim of a forced disappearance and finds that the State is responsible for the violation of his rights recognized in Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 5(2) and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the latter as of August 26, 2006. VIII-2 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS, THE DUTY TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW64 AND THE MANDATES OF ARTICLE I(B) OF THE INTER-AMERICAN CONVENTION ON FORCED DISAPPEARANCE OF PERSONS A. Arguments of the representative of the victims 65. The representative agreed with the arguments of the Commission with respect to those that involved recognition by the State of its international responsibility and, in addition, alleged the violation of Article 2 of the American Convention because, at the moment of the events, the crime of the forced disappearance of persons had not been defined. B. Considerations of the Court 66. The Court recalls that the obligation to investigate human rights violations is one of the positive measures that States must take in order to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. Beginning with its very first judgment, the Court has emphasized the importance of the State’s duty to investigate and punish this type of violation, 65 which acquires a special importance in view of the gravity of the offense and the nature of the infringed rights.66 This obligation also arises from other inter-American instruments. In cases of forced disappearances, the obligation to investigate is reinforced by Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons,67 in force for Ecuador since August 26, 2006. 67. Additionally, the Court has considered that, when a forced disappearance occurs, it is necessary that it effectively be considered and treated as an illegal act that must have as a consequence the imposition of sanctions on whoever committed, instigated, covered up or on whoever had in any other form participated in it.68 In this respect, the Court has consistently 64 Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 166 and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 184. 65 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 128 and Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 92. 66 Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons establishes: “The States Parties in this Convention undertake to “(b) To punish, within their jurisdiction, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories.” 67 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, paras. 176 and 177 and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 168. 68 17