he or she may be found deprived of liberty. 209 This obligation is independent of whether a complaint has been filed because, in cases of forced disappearances, international law and the general obligation to ensure rights impose the obligation to investigate the case ex officio, without delay, and in a genuine, impartial and effective manner; 210 hence, this does not depend on the procedural initiative of the victim or his or her family, or on the submission of evidence by private individuals. 211 In any case, any State authority, public official or private individual who has information on acts related to the forced disappearance of persons, must report this immediately. 212 139. The Court observes that, at the start of the disappearance, Edgar Fernando García’s next of kin filed numerous applications for habeas corpus, denounced the facts publicly in newspapers and at press conferences, and met with senior Government officials, such as the Vice Minister of Defense and the then Head of State. In addition, they searched for him in official detention centers, morgues, hospitals, “insane asylums” and cemeteries, among other places (supra paras. 69 to 73). The response to all these actions taken by the family members was the authorities' refusal to acknowledge Mr. García’s detention and the failure to obtain his liberty. Even though, owing to its competence ratione temporis, the Court is unable to derive legal consequences from the State’s actions prior to March 1987, it is essential to point out that the omissions incurred by the said authorities have conditioned or limited the subsequent investigations into the events. 140. Following the State’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, Mr. García’s wife denounced his disappearance to the PDH in 1988, and three applications for habeas corpus were filed through her representatives in 1997. In view of the lack of results, in November 1997, the representatives requested the opening of a special investigation procedure before the Supreme Court of Justice. 213 Some investigative procedures were initiated in 1999, first by the Public Prosecution Service, mandated by the Supreme Court pursuant to the applicable criminal procedural law, and then by the Ombudsman’s Office, which was in charge of the special investigation procedure. However, these investigations did not progress until the accidental discovery of the Historical Archive of the National Police in 2005 (supra para. 60). In addition to the actions and remedies filed by the victim’s family members, the Court underscores that, in February 1999, the CEH had concluded in its final report that Edgar Fernando García had been forcibly disappeared “by members of the Special Operations Brigade (BROE) of the National Police.” 214 Then, in May 1999, the Diario 209 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 134, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 218. 210 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 65, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 223. 211 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 248. 212 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 65, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 223. 213 Article 467 of the Guatemalan Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that: “If an application for habeas corpus has been filed, without finding the person in whose favor it was requested, and there are sufficient grounds to suppose that he or she has been arrested or illegally held in detention by a public official, by members of the State security forces, or by regular or irregular agents, without any information being provided on his or her whereabouts, the Supreme Court of Justice, at the request of any person, may: (1) Call upon the Public Prosecution Service to inform the court, within five days at the most, about the progress and outcome of the investigation, about the measures taken and required, and about those that remain pending; the Supreme Court may abbreviate the time frame when necessary. (2) Mandate the inquiry (preparatory procedure), in the following exclusive order: (a) to the Ombudsman; (b) to an entity or association legally-established in the country; (c) to the spouse or the next of kin of the victim.” Code of Criminal Procedure of Guatemala, supra, article 467, Fourth Book, Specific Procedures, Title II, Special investigation procedure. 214 Cf. CEH, supra, volume VI, p. 152. 49