Court. These obligations shall be interpreted and applied so that the protected guarantee is truly practical and effective, bearing in mind the special nature of human rights treaties.6 A) Obligation to remove all de facto and de jure obstacles that maintain impunity regarding the torture and inhuman treatment suffered by José Luis Ibsen Peña and with regard to the forced disappearance and murder of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, and to open the necessary investigations to determine those responsible for these facts within a reasonable time (seventh and eighth operative paragraphs of the Judgment) 5. The State provided information on two investigative proceedings conducted with regard to this case. It referred, first, to criminal case file 37/2000 analyzed in the Judgment (supra having seen paragraph 1) in which, on August 16, 2010, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice sentenced Oscar Menacho Vaca and Justo Sarmiento Alanes to 20 years’ imprisonment for the perpetration of the crime of forced disappearance of persons, and Juan Antonio Elio Rivero to 15 years’ imprisonment for aiding and abetting, in relation to the facts that occurred to José Luis Ibsen Peña.7 This proceeding ended on October 27, 2010, the day on which the “sentencing orders” were issued for these three individuals. According to the information presented by the State, on November 4, 2010, the home of Justo Sarmiento Alanes was searched and he was arrested. 6. Then, in a brief of September 3, 2011, the State indicated that the second criminal proceeding was initiated on October 14, 2010, before the Fourth Criminal Trial Court of La Paz, as a result of a complaint8 filed by Tito Ibsen Castro against Justo Sarmiento Alanes and Mario Adett Zamora, for the crimes “of murder and forced disappearance [… to the detriment of] Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña.” According to the information provided by the State at that time, this trial was still “at a preliminary stage.” 7. Moreover, regarding this trial, Bolivia advised that, on July 20, 2012, the Public Prosecution Service had filed charges before the Fourth Criminal Trial Court of La Paz against Mario Adett Zamora and Justo Sarmiento Alanes, for perpetration of the crimes of forced disappearance of persons, and the ill-treatment and torture of the “deceased victim[s]” José Luis Ibsen Peña and Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, “because sufficient probative elements and evidence had been [gathered] to establish that the accused were the perpetrators of the said crimes.” Furthermore, according to the State, on September 17, 2012, as a complainant in the criminal proceedings, Tito Ibsen had presented specific charges against these individuals. Consequently, and since the accused had a “registered domicile” in Santa Cruz, on October 5, 2012, the Fourth Criminal Trial Judge of Santa Cruz “issued a legal order that the accused [should be] notified of these procedural actions through the Criminal Trial Court of that city.” According to the information presented by the State, on February 25, 2013, they had still not been notified, owing “to an internal procedure within the judicial organ.” However, once the notification had been made, a date                                                              6 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 37, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Uruguay. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013, fourth considering paragraph. 7 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010 Series C No. 21 para. 150, and Supreme Decision No. 247, issued by the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Santa Cruz (file on monitoring compliance, tome I, folio 393). 8 Cf. “Public Prosecution Service v/ The authors, for the perpetration of the crimes of forced disappearance, murder, and others (MP No. LP210099466/10, IANUS: 201059545)” (file on monitoring compliance, tome I, folios 370 and 682). 4