10 Tribunal are per se a form of reparation and they offer “a great contribution in the processes of truth and justice.” 26. In this regard, taking into account the seriousness of the facts and the violations acknowledged by the State, the Court will proceed to the ample and specific determination of the facts occurred, since it contributes to the reparation of the victims, to avoiding the repetition of similar events, and to satisfying, in short, the purposes of the Inter-American human rights jurisdiction. However, the Tribunal does not consider it necessary, on this opportunity, to open to discussion the matters not subject to controversy, taking into account that the legal claims argued in his case have already been broadly established by the Inter-American Court in other cases on the forced disappearance of people, some of them against Guatemala.16 27. Even though the State has already partially repaired the victims, by virtue of the demands of justice that revolve around this case, the Court will examine the reparations that have been argued. The Commission and the representatives insisted that several reparation measures, especially those related with the investigation of the facts and the location of the remains of the victims, “had not been effectively complied with.” The Commission stated that in Guatemala “the subsistence of high levels of impunity does not only mean that numerous serious crimes are not punished but instead it becomes a situation that affects the life itself of the nation and its culture.” 28. The State acknowledged that there are commitments that are still pending compliance that “due to their complexity, and not because of a lack of will or actions, could not be achieved in the time periods established.” The State informed the Court that “it continues making efforts to implement processes that allow the location of the remains of María and Josefa Tiu Tojín and the remains of the victims of the internal armed conflict.” Similarly, it stated “that even though they have not been able to identify those responsible for the facts, it is promoting actions” so that this can be achieved. 29. Taking into account the aforementioned, the Tribunal will proceed to precise the grounds of the obligation to investigate the facts of the forced disappearance of María and Josefa Tiu Tojín in Section VII.C of this Judgment, and it will take on the legal and factual obstacles that have prevented its compliance within the framework of the transition toward democracy in Guatemala. These precisions will contribute to the development of jurisprudence regarding this matter and the corresponding protection of the human rights of the victims of this case. Finally, the Tribunal will decide on the subsisting controversy with regard to the rest of the reparations requested by the Commission and the representatives. V EVIDENCE 30. Based on that established in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the jurisprudence of the Tribunal with regard to evidence and its appraisal, the Court will examine and assess the documental evidentiary elements forwarded Cfr. Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36; Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70; Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of May 4, 2004. Series C No. 106, and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105. 16