53 192. The Tribunal has understood that for a criminal investigation to constitute an effective remedy that assures the right to access to justice of the alleged victims, as well as to guarantee the rights that have been infringed, the investigation must be carried out with seriousness and not be a simple formality condemned from the onset to be unsuccessful, and it must have a purpose and be assumed by the States as a legal duty and not as a simple formality for private interests that depend on the procedural initiatives of the victim or his next of kin or of the contribution by these private individuals of the probative elements.209 193. Regarding the forced disappearance of persons, the Court has affirmed that “given the particular gravity of these crimes and the nature of the rights infringed upon, the prohibition of forced disappearance of persons and of the correlative duty to investigate them and punish those responsible has reached a character of jus cogens.”210 From there, each time that there are reasonable motives to presume that a person has been submitted to forced disappearance, an investigation must be initiated211 ex oficio, without delay, in a serious, impartial and effective manner.212 In any case, all state authorities, public or private employees that have notice of the acts of the forced disappearance of persons must report it immediately.213 194. In the present case, it has been demonstrated that before the recognition of the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the Court, effective March 9, 1987, the next of kin of the alleged victim came to the National Police Station on the San Juan Road to report the detention of Florencio Chitay Nech and days after, the DCG party publicly denounced his kidnapping, combined with the fact that Mr. Chitay Nech was recognized as a political director for the charges that he had occupied in the Municipal Council of San Martín Jilotepeque, which made him a public figure. As a result of this, the Court considers that the argument of the State that it did not know of the facts which occurred on April 1, 1981, is not admissible, as it is evident that the State authorities had knowledge of the same. Also, prior to March 9, 1987, two other opportunities were highlighted for the State to have had knowledge of the facts, namely: a) in 1999, in the Report of the CEH, the disappearance of Florencio Chitay Nech was registered in the case No. 707, and b) on October 12, 2004, with the presentation of an appeal of habeas corpus, which confirmed that, even after having formal notice of the facts with the presentation of this appeal, the State did not consequently act with its duty to immediately begin an exhaustive investigation.214 In agreement with the facts between March 9, 1987, and March 1, 2009, the State did not promote any investigation and it was not until recently, on March 2, 2009, that it initiated certain procedures of investigation with 209 Cf. Case Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 32, para. 177; Case Garibaldi V. Brasil, supra note 18, para. 113, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 139. 210 Cf. Case Goiburú et. al. V. Paraguay, supra note 87, para. 84; Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 59, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 139. 211 Cf. Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 143. 212 Cf. Case of la Masacre of Pueblo Bello V. Colombia, supra note 94, para. 145, Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 65, and Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 143. 213 Cf. Case Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 86, para. 65, and Case Radilla Pacheco Vs México, supra note 12, para 143. 214 Cf. Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 200.