74 234. The representatives asked the Court to order the State to investigate what happened to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and to José Luis Ibsen Peña, as well as to punish “the intellectual actors and the perpetrators” and “those responsible for the delay in and obstruction of justice that occurred in the case […].” In addition, they asked the Court to order the State “to publish and to disseminate” in “different media the results of the domestic proceedings.” 235. For its part, the State indicated that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs “made an observation to the Supreme Court of Justice concerning the international parameters of International Human Rights Law that should be taken into account” when deciding appeals and annulment filed against the decision in Cour Order No. 466/2009, which partially confirmed the adverse ruling of the Seventh First Instance Civil and Commercial Court of Santa Cruz of December 6, 2008. In addition, the State indicated that, within the criminal proceedings underway in the city of Sucre, “it has been ordered[,] by means of a procedural decision of April 6, 2010, that the criminal proceedings […] be given priority[…]” because of the violations to the rights of the victims; and that on May 18, 2010, the Appeals Prosecutor asked the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to give priority to the said criminal proceeding. 236. In Chapter VII of this judgment, the Court established, inter alia, the State’s delay in opening the investigation into the facts of this case; the absence of an investigation into what happened to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas; the transfer of the burden of proof to the complainants in the criminal proceeding for the acts perpetrated against José Luis Ibsen Peña, and the impunity of the acts of torture and inhumane treatment committed against the latter and the murder of Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas (supra paras. 160 to 163, 169 to 174 and 208 to 212). The foregoing has led to the ineffectiveness of the investigations and proceeding to clarify the facts in this case, and to prosecute and, as appropriate, to punish all those responsible, within a reasonable time, consequently examining completely and thoroughly the many damages caused to the victims.263 237. Taking into account the foregoing, as well as this Court’s jurisprudence,264 the Court orders that the State must continue to search the whereabouts of Mr. José Luis Ibsen Peña; which entails the prompt performance of the necessary analyses to determine or rule out that the remains found in La Cuchilla (supra para. 111) correspond to him. In addition, the State must remove all factual or legal obstacles that maintain impunity in this case,265 and initiate the necessary investigations to identify all those responsible for the detention and disappearance of Mr. Ibsen Peña. Furthermore, the State must open the pertinent investigation to determine what happened to Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, and to effectively apply the penalties and consequences established by law. The State must direct and conclude the pertinent investigations and proceedings within a reasonable time, in order to establish the whole truth about the facts. In particular, the State must: (a) Initiate the pertinent investigations in relation to the facts that occurred to Mr. Ibsen Cárdenas and Mr. Ibsen Peña, taking into account the systematic 263 Cf. Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 231, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 232. 264 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 199; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 336, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 240. 265 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 277; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 235, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 216.