72 criminal prosecution is an adequate instrument for preventing future violations of human rights.”397 It also wrote that the description of the crime should take into account the minimum elements established in the specific international instruments, both universal and inter-American, adopted to protect victims 398 of forced disappearance. 314. In the present case, although forced disappearance is now a criminal offense under Guatemala’s domestic laws, the Commission observes that no criminal investigations have been conducted in Guatemala into the crime of forced disappearance. The Commission notes that the Court itself underscored the fact that States have an obligation to apply the crime of forced disappearance once it has been introduced into the domestic legal system, even with respect to facts that occurred before forced disappearance was criminalized, since the crime is a continuing offense until such time as 399 the person’s whereabouts have been established. 315. The failure to properly criminalize acts such as those that occurred in the present case also contributes to the impunity that continues to obstruct the determination of responsibilities, at all levels, within the Guatemalan Army, among its collaborators and among other state officials. 2.6.4. Conclusion 316. From all the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the domestic investigations and proceedings have not been effective remedies in guaranteeing access to justice, determining the truth of what happened, investigating and punishing all those responsible and making reparations for the consequences of the violations. Hence, the Commission finds that the State has violated articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, read in junction with the obligation to respect rights set forth in Article 1(1) thereof, and Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, to the detriment of the disappeared persons and the victims’ next of kin listed in the single annex to this report. 317. Finally, the Commission concludes that the State violated Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, by its failure to comply with the obligation to investigate the acts of sexual violence described and analyzed in the present report. 2.7. Right to equal protection (Article 24 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof) 397 I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par.145; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, paragraphs 96 and 97; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, paragraphs 188-189; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, par. 66. 398 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, paragraphs 96-97; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, paragraphs 188-189, and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, par.92. 399 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.211; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, par.199.