5 State shows that it has made advances in its investigations, it is also apparent that more than 19 years after the forced disappearance of Mr. Gómez Palomino, and more than five years after the notification of the Judgment subject to monitoring, impunity continues to affect the family of Mr. Gómez Palomino. The Court has consistently indicated in its jurisprudence that pursuant to the guarantee obligation provided for in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the obligation to prevent and fight impunity, which the Court has defined as “the combined lack of investigation, prosecution, arrest, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.”6 Thus, given its importance, the obligation to investigate cannot be carried out haphazardly, but rather it must be undertaken in accordance with the standards established by international law and jurisprudence. These standards describe such investigations as timely, comprehensive, impartial, and independent7 without placing the impetus of investigations on the family members of Mr. Gómez Palomino or his representatives. 10. In this regard, this Court notes the coordination efforts that the State plans to undertake in order to conduct a diligent investigation, and it awaits information from the State on the concrete results of said investigation. The Court also regards it to be essential that the State address the representatives’ contention that information relevant to this case may have arisen in the course of effective cooperation agreements signed in other proceedings, as well as any subsequent measures it may have adopted. In sum, for the purposes of monitoring compliance with this point, it is vital that the State present updated, detailed, and comprehensive information on the new efforts it has engaged in to comply with this obligation, along with copies of any relevant documentation. b) Regarding the obligation to carry out, with due diligence, any necessary actions to locate and deliver the mortal remains of Mr. Santiago Gómez Palomino to his next-of-kin, and provide the conditions necessary to transfer and bury the remains in a place of their choice (Operative Paragraph 8 of the Judgment) 11. The State reported that in December 2010 “the remains [of Mr.] Gómez Palomino ha[d] not been located.” It also indicated that it would attempt to combine the efforts of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the judge in order to move forward with this search. 12. The representatives reported that in the criminal proceedings before the Cuarto Juzgado Penal Especial [Fourth Special Criminal Court] on December 1, 2008, they requested a copy of the 1993 investigation conducted regarding the search for human remains on the beach known as “La Chira,” “and are yet to receive the results.” They also stressed that, according to information provided by an ex-member of the Colina group in 2004, La Chira beach was identified as the possible location of the victim’s remains. This fact led to an unsuccessful inspection and exhumation on the part of the Human Rights division of the Prosecutor’s Office. This information was again confirmed in 2007 by four ex- 6 Cf. Case of the "White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 16, 2011, Considering Clause 10, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 18, 2010, Considering Clause 21. 7 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, Considering Clause 30; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering Clause 21, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, Considering Clause 13.