52 corpus, the Commission indicated that the State should have initiated an investigation into the facts denounced, in conformity with Article 109 of Decree No. 1-86 of the Law of Protection, Disclosure and Constitutionality, that obligates the tribunal to immediately order the investigation if there are indications that a person has been forcibly disappeared. 188. Also, the representatives signaled, among others, that: a) the report raised by the State was one of mere formalism, given that no result had been obtained; b) attempts to make advancements in the investigations have fallen on the next of kin, as documentation offered by them was lost and asked for again, and it was them who looked for Mr. Chitay Nech in morgues and hospitals, and c) that State agents came to look for the alleged victims at their homes in an irregular manner, without identifying themselves, presenting themselves as bank workers. Also, the representatives alleged in a general manner that the remedies in order to resolve the situation that generated the forced disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech have not been effective. Also, they signaled that the Guatemalan legislation contemplates that the utilization of “Special Inquiry Procedure,” is not of an obligatory character for the next of kin of the victims nor constitutes a means of impunity for that resolved in the appeal of habeas corpus raised. 189. For its part, the State alleged that the lack of an effective investigation of the facts is due to the lack of knowledge of the same, which was attributable to the petitioners because they should have announced the disappearance of Florencio Chitay, as national remedies of a judicial character existed at that time. It signaled that the only existent report is the one presented by the COPREDEH on March 2, 2009. The State referred to various steps of investigation carried out by the Public Prosecutor’s Office. Consequently, the State required the Court to take into account the efforts made to comply with the recommendations of the Commission and that to declare that Guatemala has not incurred the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same. The State did not present arguments related with the right to the truth alleged by the representatives. Also, the State indicated that the next of kin of Florencio Chitay did not present a remedy of habeas corpus immediately after the disappearance as is established by law, but that it was made twenty three years later, which demonstrated “the bad use of the existent remedies.” It added, that after being declared inadmissible, said remedy was not attended by the “Special Process of Inquiry,” and that “the only purpose of the habeas corpus was to reactivate the process so as to bring the case before the Inter-American System of Human rights,” and that the mere fact that a remedy does not produce a favorable result to the claimant does not demonstrate, in itself, the lack of existence or the exhaustion of all the efficient domestic remedies. 190. The Court has established that the State has the obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to the persons that allege to be victims of violations of human rights (Article 25), remedies that must be summarized in conformity with the legal rules of due process (Article 8(1)), each of them within the general obligation, charged to the States, to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to each person found under its jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).208 191. It corresponds to analyze whether the State has carried out the investigation of the facts with due diligence and in a reasonable time period, and if the remedy of habeas corpus has constituted an effective recourse to assure the right of access to justice of the alleged victims. 208 Cf. Case Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Exceptions, supra note 18, para. 91; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 190, and Case Of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 104