26 71. Guatemala has acknowledged its failure to comply with its obligations in this matter and has stated its commitment regarding the violations to human rights committed in the past “under the precepts of justice, truth, reparation of the people, and dignification of the victims in order to create a new identity toward the future, which implies clarifying the whereabouts of those disappeared and making progress towards a State respectful of human rights and that seeks national reconciliation.” According to said policy, Guatemala has promoted actions within the framework of the proceeding taken before the Inter-American Commission and before this Tribunal in relation to this case (supra paras. 16 and 20), which must be acknowledged. The Inter-American Court values positively that the military court of the Fourth Brigade of General Infantry “Justo Rufino Barrios”, through its ruling of June 10, 2008 declined its jurisdiction to hear the case and established that the processes be forwarded to the Courts of Ordinary Jurisdiction responding to a request of the Prosecutors’ Office of the Human Rights Section of the City of Guatemala (supra para. 20). This is consistent with the jurisprudence of this Court on this subject (infra paras. 118 and 119). 72. However, after more than 17 years since the detention and forced disappearance of María and Josefa Tiu Tojín, the State’s obligations continue to be unmet. Therefore, it is imperative that the State exhaust all the procedures necessary in order to guarantee, within a reasonable period of time, the effective compliance of its duty to investigate, prosecute, and, if it is the case, punish those responsible for the facts of this case, as well as ensure the victims’ right to a fair trial. The result of the proceedings must be made public, so that the Guatemalan society can know the truth. 73. Taking into account the aforementioned, this Tribunal will refer separately to each of the requests of the Commission and the representatives, in what refers to the mentioned obligation to investigate. Due diligence in the investigation and pursuit of the facts of this case 74. The representatives asked the Tribunal that it order the State to appoint, before the ordinary justice system, a Special Prosecutor for the compliance with the investigation of the facts of the present case. 75. On November 26, 2008 the State informed that the investigation of the facts of the present case has been transferred to the Public Prosecutors’ Unit for Special Cases and Human Rights Violations (Historical Explanation), of which this Tribunal takes note. 76. On other opportunities the Court has established that the obligation to investigate with due diligence acquires special intensity and importance due to the gravity of the crimes committed and the nature of the rights infringed.84 In cases of the forced disappearance of persons, such as the present, the Tribunal has 84 Cfr. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra note 67, para. 84; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 157; and Case of La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 12, para. 156.