9 25. That the Court notes that its past decisions, regarding both the merits of the case as well as the monitoring of compliance with the Judgments, show that Guatemala has a serious problem with the impunity that prevails in the country, in particular, in relation to the systematic human rights violations committed during the armed conflict. 26. That this Court has held that the prohibition of forced disappearance of persons and the corresponding duty to investigate and punish those responsible therefor are norms which “have attained the status of jus cogens.”19 27. That this Court’s case law, the decisions of other international bodies and organizations as well as other international treaties and instruments, such as the 1992 Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and the 2007 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance set certain standards that should guide investigations on the part of the State and/or that determine when an investigation is considered appropriate and effective. 28. That, specifically, the Court has held that “in cases of [...] forced disappearances and other egregious human rights violations, [...] the conduct of a prompt, serious, impartial and effective ex officio investigation is a fundamental and determining factor in the protection of certain rights that are affected or annulled by those situations, such as the rights to life, to personal liberty and to humane treatment.”20 In this regard, the Court has held that an investigation must not be carried out “as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective;”21 rather, “it must be conducted in a purposeful manner and undertaken by the State as its own legal duty and not as a mere pursuit of private interests, dependent on the initiative of the victim or their next of kin or upon evidence provided by private individuals, without an effective search for the truth by the public authority. This is true regardless of what agent is eventually found responsible for the violation and applies even to private individuals insofar as, if their acts are not seriously investigated, the State would be, in a sense, aiding and abetting those crimes, thereby incurring international responsibility.”22 Furthermore, the Court has stated that an investigation must be conducted “using all legal means available”23 and “within a reasonable time.”24 29. That the 2007 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance has embodied the standards set out in the Court’s case law 19 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 84. 20 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 110. 21 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez.v. Honduras, supra note 16, para. 177; Case of Heliodoro-Portugal v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, paras. 144 and 145; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 100. 22 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez.v. Honduras, supra note 18, para. 174; Case of Godínez-Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 188. 23 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143; Case of Heliodoro-Portugal v. Panama, supra note 21, para. 144; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 21, para. 101. 24 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra note 17, para. 319; Case of Heliodoro-Portugal v. Panama, supra note 20, para. 157, and Case of Ticona-Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 79.