14 The Court added that the International Convention for the protection of all persons against forced disappearances of 2007 states, in Article 12 thereof, that if a complaint has been filed, the competent authorities “will proceed without delay to carry out an exhaustive and impartial investigation,” and “will take adequate measures, when necessary, to guarantee the protection of the complainant, the witnesses, the next of kin of the people missing, as well as their defenders.” However, in the absence of a formal complaint, the authorities must start said investigation ex officio. Additionally, the States Parties shall make sure that the aforementioned authorities “[h]ave the powers and resources necessary to effectively carry out the investigation, including access to documents and other relevant information to the same.” Finally, the States Parties shall take: 28. the measures necessary to prevent and punish the acts that hinder the execution of the investigations. Specifically, they must guarantee that the people who have allegedly committed the crime of forced disappearance are not able to influence the course of investigations by pressurizing, intimidating or retaliating against the claimant, the witnesses, the next of kin of the missing person, and their defender, as well as those who participate in the investigation.22 Likewise, the Court indicated that the obligation to investigate could not be exercised in any way other than in accordance with the standards established by the international regulations and jurisprudence that characterize them as prompt, exhaustive, impartial, and independent investigations.23 29. Based on the aforementioned, which had been expressed by the Tribunal due to the lack of progress in the investigations and the impunity in the present case, in the Order issued in 2009, the Court clearly and specifically established that the State should, inter alia, inform it of the procedural acts i) aimed at investigating the systematic patterns and responsibility of the corresponding military chains of command, specifically related to the present case, ii) carried out as a consequence of the reevaluation of the testimonies and other procedural pieces already offered in the criminal proceeding carried out between 1992 and 2000, a year in which the Judgment on Merits of the Court was issued in the present case, as well as any relevant Judgments offered subsequently, and iii) carried out because of the reevaluation of 30. 22 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 18, Considering Clause thirty. 23 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 18, Considering Clause thirty-one.