66 DNA testing could be attempted, to which, in December 2008, samples taken from the skull were sent to the Laboratory of Human Genetics in Spain. 212 181. María Macarena Gelman requested that the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team intervene and inspect the bodily remains. She also requested that the samples taken from the skull be transferred to a laboratory in Cordoba, Argentina, without prejudice that another sample be tested in Uruguay. At the hearing on March 11, 2009, the court ordered an additional expert opinion by a forensic anthropologist from the Forensic Anthropology Division of Criminal Investigation at the Legal Medical Institute of Peru. The Court granted the Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team permission to be present, but prohibited any type of technical manipulation or a technical opinion from said team. On March 16, 2009, an expert comparison of the skull was performed and it resulted in a "positive identification.” 213 However, in August 2009, the genetic tests yielded negative results. 182. At the time of the present judgment, this matter is under pretrial investigation, but there has been little progress. No one has been formally accused, charged, or punished and María Claudia Garcia de Gelman’s whereabouts have not been determined. C. The obligation to investigate in the jurisprudence of this Court. 183. This Court has emphasized the importance of the State's duty to investigate and punish human rights violations, 214 obligation to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute and punish, is particularly important given the seriousness of the crimes committed and the nature of the infringed rights, particularly because the prohibition of enforced disappearance and its corresponding obligation to investigate and punish those responsible has reached jus cogens nature. 215                                                          212 Cf. Report No. 794 of the Forensic Anthropology Laboratory of December 11, 2008, evidence, annex 2, peice 4, pages. 138 to 143. 213 Forensic Anthropological Report of March 17, 2009, requested by the Court of Second Round, evidence, annex 2, peice 4, page 320. 214 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 20, paras. 166; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores supra note 16, para. 215; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 137. 215 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 23, para. 84; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 137, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 197.