54 the presentation of a formal report of the forced disappearance of Mr. Chitay Nech on behalf of the COPREDEH.215 195. In conformity with the legislation in effect at the moment of the facts,216 the State should have carried out a serious, independent, impartial and effective investigation of the facts having reasonable motives to presuppose the forced disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech. It was not until March 2, 2009, that COPREDEH raised the report referred to. For this Tribunal, the lack of a State’s response is a determinative element in the evaluation of whether there was a lack of fulfillment of the content of Articles 8(1) y 25(1) of the American Convention, that has a direct relationship with the principle of effectiveness that must regulate the investigations.217 As such, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with its obligation to investigate with the diligence and seriousness required. 196. In addition, for the investigation to be conducted in a serious and impartial manner and as a legal duty in itself, the right of access to justice requires that the determination of the facts be effective in that the investigation takes place in reasonable time, because in attention to the need to guarantee the rights of the persons afflicted, a prolonged delay can constitute, for said persons, a violation of their judicial guarantees.218 Even more so if in the cases of forced disappearance, the passage of time has a direct proportional relationship with the limitation – and in some cases, the impossibility – of obtaining evidence and/or statements, making it difficult and even nullifying or deeming ineffective the execution of evidentiary procedures carried out to clarify the material facts of the investigation,219 to identify the possible perpetrators and participants, and to determine the eventual criminal perpetrators.220 215 The Article 201 TER, Decree No. 48-1995 reforms the Penal Code (Decree 17-1973) of 14 of July of 1995. Forced Disappearance, establishes that: “[the crime of forced disappearance is commited by one, who by order, with the authorization and support of State authorities, deprives, in any manner, the liberty of one or more persons, for political reasons, hiding their whereabouts, refusing to reveal their purpose, or recognize their detition, as well as by State official or employee, whether or not this individual forms part of the security organs of the State, that orders, authorizes, or supports or acquiesces to said actions. Said crime of forced disappearance, the deprivation of liberty of one or more persons, even without political reason, when committed by officials of the security organs of the State, in their official capacities, when acting arbitrarily or in abuse of power. Likewise, those members of groups of organized groups such as gangs with terrorist, insurgent, or subversive purposes, or with any other criminal purpose, commit the crime of forced disappearance, when they kidnap, acting as members of said group or gang. The offense is considered in continuation so long as the victim is not free. A conviction of forced disappearance will be punished with thirty-five years in prison. The death penalty shall be imposed in the place of the maximum prison sentence, when the victim of the forced disappearance is found seriously hurt or injured, with psychological trauma or permanente harm or death.” 216 Cf. Articles 68 and 112 of Decree No. 52-73 Code of Criminal Procedure of Guatemala (annexes of the petition, annex 7, fs. 147 and 148). 217 Cf. Case García Prieto et. al. V. El Salvador. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 20 of November of 2007. Series C. No. 168, para. 115; Case Garibaldi V. Brasil, supra note 18, para. 132, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 201. 218 Cf. Case Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamín et. al. V. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 21 of June of 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 191, and Case Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 132. 219 Cf. Case Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 76, para. 150; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 135, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 215. 220 Cf. Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 135, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 215.