44 122. The Guatemalan Ombudsman issued a resolution on October 6, 1992, in which he urged that a judicial investigation of the facts that affected Maritza Urrutia should be initiated93. At this juncture, it is appropriate to examine the Resolution of the Ombudsman, in which he stated: I) That the human rights to personal liberty, safety, integrity and free movement of Maritza Nineth Urrutia García were violated, because she was the victim of an enforced disappearance for eight days. II) That the Government of the Republic of Guatemala is responsible for the lack of control over repressive groups which continue to act outside the law. III) That the Government must conduct an effective investigation and clarify the facts promptly, so that the authors of the facts are brought before the courts of justice and impunity is thereby combated effectively. IV) That the Government of the Republic, through the corresponding authorities, must provide the respective protection, in order to guarantee the life, safety and integrity of the next of kin of Maritza Nineth Urrutia García. […] 123. It has been established that on August 6, 1992, an investigation was opened before the Fourth Criminal Trial Court and the court summoned the alleged victim to make a statement on August 7 that year. The summons was made through the Attorney General to the father of the victim, who was not in communication with her. Maritza Urrutia did not appear to make a statement. In view of her failure to appear, the State officials abstained from initiating the criminal proceeding to investigate the facts, so that there have been no results to date. 124. On this point, the CEH Report indicated that “since June 19, 1995, judicial file No. 2038-92, Fifth Official in charge of the Fourth Criminal Court corresponding to this case, has been in the hands of the Office of the Attorney General, and, to date, no measure has been taken in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”94 It also added that “the authorities of the State of Guatemala failed seriously in their obligation to investigate and punish these human rights violations, disregarding the right to due judicial protection of the victim and of justice,”95 a situation that was aggravated by “the fact that the State, through its agents in the Office of the Attorney General and the courts, protected the authors and collaborated with them, covering up the nature of their actions and responding to the illegal and pernicious influence that the Executive, in particular the Armed Forced, still exercised over other bodies and officials of the State in 1992.”96 125. By not investigating the human rights violations effectively for more than 11 years, and not punishing those responsible, the State violated the obligation to 93 In this Resolution the Guatemalan Ombudsman indicated that, based on the complaint filed by Edmundo Urrutia Castellanos on July 23, 1992, the same day “he ordered the opening of the file, requesting reports from the Minister of the Interior and the Director General of the National Police, for the immediate investigation and clarification of the case, and to date [of this Resolution] they have not replied.” 94 Cf. Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Guatemala, memoria del silencio, Tome VI, illustrative case No. 33, “Privación arbitraria de libertad y tortura de Maritza Urrutia”, pp. 245 to 250 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 2, folios 32 to 37). 95 Cf. Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Guatemala, memoria del silencio, Tome VI, illustrative case No. 33, “Privación arbitraria de libertad y tortura de Maritza Urrutia”, pp. 245 to 250 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 2, folios 32 to 37). 96 Cf. Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, Guatemala, memoria del silencio, Tome VI, illustrative case No. 33, “Privación arbitraria de libertad y tortura de Maritza Urrutia”, pp. 245 to 250 (file of attachments to the application, attachment 2, folios 02 to 37).