9 Inadmissibility of the closing of the investigation in the present case 2. Taking into account the domestic judicial decisions mentioned, the State requested that the Court “[…] consider the efforts made to comply with the investigation process […] prior to the Constitutionality Court’s ruling” and “that it issue a decision on the ruling made by the Constitutionality Court,” “that expands the criterion of the spirit of the [J]udgment,” “since the ruling of [said Court] prevents the State of Guatemala from complying” with that ordered by the Inter-American Court. 14. The representatives requested that the Court ratify the “compulsory nature of the judgments […] on the understanding that a comprehensive part of such judgments are the orders […] to monitor compliance,” the “general effects of all the Court’s judgments” and “the extent of the obligation to investigate the forced disappearance” in the present case. They indicated that, “the recent decisions in the case” are “irrefutable evidence that there are still mechanisms that prevent” an “effective progress in the investigation, prosecution, and punishment of those responsible for these grave violations.” They added that these decisions “violate regulations that have become jus cogens in nature” and that “it is absolutely incongruent that on one hand the State officially presented a position acknowledging responsibility in the different matters being processed” before the Court and “on the other it continues, through the actions of its different bodies, to systematically fail to comply with the reparation measures.” 15. On its part, the Commission considered that “[…] the judgment of the Constitutionality Court represents a step back in the compliance with the Judgment and the international commitments made by Guatemala.” Likewise, the Commission observed that “[…] the Order of the InterAmerican Court is general in the sense that it orders to “investigate the facts that generated the violations” and it “covers the domestic proceedings in their entirety, thus it is not necessary that the Court […] “express each procedural step the States must take to conduct a complete and effective investigation.” Additionally, the Commission 16. Supreme Court of Justice (dossier of monitoring compliance with Judgment, volume II, folios 1131 through 1145).