62 230. Both the Commission as well as the representatives requested the Court to order the State to carry out an effective investigation of the facts to establish and sanction all the perpetrators and accomplices involved in the kidnapping and later disappearance of Mr. Chitay Nech, as well as those responsible for the obstruction of the investigation. 231. The State indicated that on March 2, 2009, it began an investigation with the report represented by COPREDEH, and that the victims did not appear to give their testimony, “which demonstrated their intention to not collaborate with the internal jurisdiction in order to [clarify] the disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech.” The State also requested the Court to take into account the efforts that it has made to comply with the Report on the Merits of the Commission. 232. In the present Judgment, the Court has established the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention due to the prolonged delay of the State to begin the investigations in the present case, which has not allowed for the guarantee of an effective remedy, nor access to justice for the victims, within a reasonable time period, which covers the clarification of the facts, the investigation, persecution, capture, prosecution, and eventual punishment of all those allegedly responsible for the forced disappearance in a way that examines in a complete and exhaustive form the harm caused by these acts. (supra para. 209). 233. The Tribunal observes that the report raised on March 2, 2009, was presented for the crime of forced disappearance, being that the facts of the present case occurred prior to the codification of this crime in the Guatemalan Penal Code. Given that the whereabouts of Florencio Chitay Nech continue to be unknown and the crime of forced disappearance has a permanent character, the Court finds that pursuant to the principle of legality, the concept of forced disappearance constitutes the criminal codification applicable in the investigation, trial and eventual sanction of the facts committed in the present case. 234. As it has been done in other cases,245 the Tribunal gives value to the publication of the report of the CEH, in which the registered case No. 707, makes reference to the disappearance of Florencio Chitay, as an effort that has contributed to the search for and determination of the truth of a historic period of Guatemala. Taking into account the aforementioned, the Court considers it pertinent to specify that the “true history” contained in this report is not complete nor a substitute for the obligation of the State to establish the truth and to assure the judicial determination of individual and State responsibilities through judicial processes as well.246 235. Taking into account that expressed, as well as the jurisprudence of this Tribunal,247 the Court finds that the State must efficiently lead the investigation that takes place in the domestic jurisdiction regarding the forced disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech to determine all those responsible for the facts of this case and to effectively apply the sanctions and consequences that the law provides. The State must direct and conclude the 245 Cf. Case La Cantuta V. Perú, supra note 223, paras. 223 and 224; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 180, and Case Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 232. 246 Cf. Case Almonacid Arellano et. al. V. Chile. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 26 of September of 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 150; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 179, and Case Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 232. 247 Cf. Case Baldeón García V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 6 of April of 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 199; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 181, and Case Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 233.