55 197. This Tribunal considers that in the present case, the time that has passed is excessively more than the time period that can be considered reasonable for the State to begin the corresponding investigative procedures, especially given the time that the investigation will take, barely being in its initial phase, and the processing of the criminal procedure with its distinct stages, until the firm judgment. This lack of investigation during such a large period of time constitutes a flagrante denial of justice and a violation of the right to access to justice of the alleged victims. 198. As such, the allegation of the State is inadmissible, that before the inadmissibility of the appeal of habeas corpus, it would correspond to the alleged victims to request the Special Inquiry Procedure from the Supreme Court of Justice,221 given that this would impart on them an obligation that corresponds to the State, particularly when more than 29 years have passed since the disappearance of Mr. Chitay Nech and 23 years since that State recognized the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Tribunal, without the State carrying out an effective investigation of the facts, which constitute a prosecutable offence ex oficio. 199. Combined with the aforementioned, in consideration of the context in which the forced disappearance of Mr. Chitay Nech occurred, this Court finds that the facts of the present case are clearly framed in a systematic pattern of denial of justice and impunity, given that the investigation is found in an initial phase, and as such those responsible still have not been identified, prosecuted, and eventually punished nor has a reparation been made to the next of kin of the alleged disappeared victim. In this regard, impunity has been defined by this Court as “the lack, as a whole, of investigation, persecution, capture, judgment and punishment of those responsible of the violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.”222 Also, this Court has established that the State must remove all the obstacles, de facto y de jure, that maintain the impunity223 and that this must be eradicated though the determination of the responsibilities both general – of the State – as well as individual – criminal, and other kinds, of their agents and their prosecutors.224 200. Due to the aforementioned, this Tribunal finds that, in conformity with Article I(b) of the ICFDP, the State must sanction effectively and within a reasonable time period those responsible for the forced disappearances that occur within its jurisdiction, assuring that it complies with the same nature of the punishment and avoiding impunity. The Court observes that in the time that has passed since the disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech until the current date, the State has not complied with that established in said rule. 201. As such, in regard to the request of the representatives in the sense that the Court orders the investigation of the acts of harassment and investigations suffered by the next of kin of Florencio Chitay before and after his disappearance, this Court considers that the acts referred to cannot be seen in an isolated manner, but should be seen within the framework of the obstacles that were placed to impede a diligent and effective 221 The Article 467 of the Guatemalan Criminal Code the remedy of Special Investigation establsiehs that the Supreme Court of Justice, at the request of any person, intime the Public Prosecutor to Report on the investigations and order a mandate to an investigator. 222 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 28, para. 173; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 212, and Case Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 234. 223 Cf. Case La Cantuta V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 29 of November of 2006. Series C. No. 162, para. 226; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 125, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 212. 224 Cf. Case Goiburú et. al. V. Paraguay, supra note 87, para. 131; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 87, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 153.