71 310. The Commission recalls that the Court has pointed out a pattern of judicial delay in Guatemala with respect to the investigation of serious violations of human rights.392 The Court noted: 393 […] the unwarranted delay in the Guatemalan judicial system, and […] the violations of the 394 right to due process. In its judgments in the cases of Myrna Mack Chang, Maritza Urrutia, the Plan de Sánchez Massacre, Molina Theissen and Tiu Tojín, all of which concerned human rights violations committed during the armed conflict in Guatemala, the Court held that 13, 11, 22, 22 and 17 years after the events, respectively, the State had not yet complied with its obligations to 395 investigate and end the impunity. 311. Summarizing, the Commission considers that the delay in the administration of domestic justice far exceeds what might be considered a reasonable period of time and therefore constitutes a denial of justice to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin. 2.6.3. Legal definition of the crime of forced disappearance 312. With regard to the forced disappearances in this case, the State argued that forced disappearance did not become a criminal offense under Guatemalan law until 1995. It argued that no one could be criminally prosecuted for supposed forced disappearances that occurred between 1981 and 1986, as this would imply a violation of the principle of non-retroactivity of the law, protected under Article 15 of the Guatemalan Constitution. 313. The Court has written that States must establish an adequate legal framework if the 396 investigation of cases of forced disappearance is to be effective. As the Court held, this implies legislating the forced disappearance of persons as an autonomous crime in their domestic laws, “since 392 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, par.134. 393 “The Guatemalan system for the administration of justice [was] ineffective in guaranteeing compliance [with] the law and protection of the rights of the victims and their next of kin in almost the totality of the violations committed against human rights during that period of time.” I/A Court H.R., Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190. par.51. 394 “[E]ven today, the courts in Guatemala have been incapable of effectively investigating, prosecuting, trying, and punishing those responsible for human rights violations.[…] The courts have often subordinated their actions to the executive branch or to military influence, ‘applying legal provisions or rules that are contrary to due process or not applying those they should have’.” I/A Court H.R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Order of the Inter-American Court, Provisional Measures and Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. January 27, 2009, par. 22; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, par.134.13. 395 I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, par.272; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, par.176; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 2003. Series C No. 116, par.95; and Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, par.79. 396 I/A Court H.R., Case of Osorio Rivera et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, par.205; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, par.165.