28 Criminal Code (infra para. 82). Thus, the criminal proceedings were started for the crime of plagiarism or kidnapping, in force at that time (infra para. 80). However, up to this date, the investigation has not offered results nor has the corresponding order for trial to commence been issued.92 In this regard, both the Commission and the representatives asked the Court that it order the State that “during the investigation proceedings, trial, and punishment of those responsible in this case, the definition of the crime be that of forced disappearance.” 80. In this regard, the Commission argued that: The scope that some decisions give the freedom from ex post facto laws in the case of more severe criminal laws in relation to the application of the crime of forced disappearance constitutes an obstacle to the obtaining of justice in cases such as the one currently before us. In the practice, the domestic courts give way before the arguments of the defense of people charged with the crime of forced disappearance regarding the prevalence of the principle of the most favorable law when imposing the sentence and the subsequent need to apply the crime of plagiarism. […] In the present case the proceedings followed are for the crime of plagiarism or kidnapping; this domestic legal classification only covers some aspects of the international crime of forced disappearance of persons. In the Commission’s opinion, the conceptualization of the facts as a crime of forced disappearance is not only a legal matter, since the legal classification given to a case is what determines the delimited object of the criminal investigation carried out within its framework, all of which goes beyond the classification granted to them under the existing legislation. 81. During the public hearing held, the State indicated that “even though they have not yet identified those responsible for the facts, it is promoting actions [in this sense]. To start the corresponding investigation and take the alleged responsible parties to an oral and public debate it is important to mention […] that in Guatemala two trials for forced disappearance defined in Article 201 of the […] Criminal Code.” 82. In effect, Guatemala defined the crime of forced disappearance in the Criminal Code –through the reform included in Decree No. 33-96 of the Congress of the Republic, approved on May 22, 1996-,93 in the following terms: Article 201 TER. Forced Disappearance. The crime of forced disappearance is committed by whoever, by order, with the authorization or support of State authorities, deprives one or more people in any way of their freedom, for political motives, hiding their whereabouts, denying to reveal their fate or acknowledging their detention, as well as the public official or employee, whether they belong or nor to the State’s security bodies, that orders, authorizes, supports, or offers acquiescence for said actions. The crime of forced disappearance is defined as the deprivation of the liberty of one or more persons, even when there is no political motive, when it is committed by elements of the State’s security bodies, in the exercise of their position, when they act arbitrarily 92 Cfr. brief of June 4, 2008, through which the Public Prosecutors’ Office of the Human Rights Section requested an ��incident due to lack of competence” (dossier of merits, volume III, folio 689 through 691). 93 Decree No. 33-96 “Reforms to Decree 17-73 of the Congress of the Republic. Criminal Code” published in the Diario de Centro América No. 24 of June 25, 1996. Official Body of the Republic of Guatemala