25 i) Obligation to investigate the facts that resulted in the violations of the present case and identify, prosecute, and, in its case, punish those responsible 68. Both the Commission and the representatives asked the Court to order the State to carry out, before the ordinary justice system, a special, rigorous, impartial, and effective investigation in order to prosecute and punish the planners and perpetrators of the forced disappearance of María Tiu Tojín and her daughter Josefa. 69. On repeated opportunities, the Tribunal has stated that, pursuant with the obligation to guarantee enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the duty to avoid and fight impunity, which has been defined by the InterAmerican Court as “the lack in its totality of the investigation, persecution, capture, prosecution, and conviction of those responsible for the violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.”81 As has been indicated by the Court, “the investigation of the facts and the punishment of the people responsible, [...] is an obligation that corresponds to the State every time there is a violation of human rights and that obligation must be complied with seriously and not as a mere formality.”82 This obligation implies the duty of the States Parties to organize the entire governmental system and, in general, all the structures through which the exercise of public power is manifested, in such a way that it legally guarantees the free and full exercise of human rights.83 70. It has been established in the present Judgment that the facts that surrounded the forced disappearance of María and Josefa Tiu Tojín have not been duly investigated by the Guatemalan justice system (supra paras. 46 and 51), and therefore up to this date they continue to be in absolute impunity. For approximately 17 years the investigation of these facts remained practically inactive and under the jurisdiction of courts of a military nature (supra paras. 46 and47). The Court observes that this situation of impunity is characteristic of similar facts occurred during the internal armed conflict in Guatemala, becoming a determining factor that forms part of the systematic patterns that allowed the commission of grave violations to human rights during that time (supra para. 51). 81 Cfr. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 17, para. 173; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 24, para. 405; and Case of vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 153. See in the same sense: Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 15, paras. 156 and 210; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 126; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 80, para. 100. 82 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 20, para. 177; Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 61; Case of García Prieto et al v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 1007. Series C No. 16, para. 100; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 17, para. 144. 83 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 20, para. 166, and Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 175; and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 110.