44 be and, in particular, whether they should consist in derogating the 1979 Minors Code or bringing into force the Children and Youth Code adopted by the Congress of the Republic of Guatemala in 1996 and the 1997 plan of action for street children, as the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Commission request. 99. In accordance with the eighth operative paragraph of the judgment on merits of November 19, 1999, Guatemala must conduct an effective investigation to identify those responsible for the human rights violations declared in this judgment and, when appropriate, punish them. The Court has stated that the obligation to guarantee and ensure effective exercise of the rights and freedoms established in the Convention is independent of and different from the obligation to make reparation. While the State is obliged to investigate the facts and punish those responsible, the victim or, in his absence, his next of kin, may waive the measures of reparation for the damage caused86. Consequently, the State that leaves human rights violations unpunished would also be failing to comply with its general obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights of the persons subject to its jurisdiction87. 100. On many occasions, this Court has referred to the right of the next of kin of the victims to know what happened88 and the identity of the State agents responsible for the acts. “[W]henever there has been a human rights violation, the State has a duty to investigate the facts and punish those responsible, [...] and this obligation must be complied with seriously and not as a mere formality”89. Moreover, this Court has indicated that the State “is obliged to combat [impunity] by all available legal means, because [impunity] encourages the chronic repetition of human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin”90. 101. Accordingly, the Court reiterates that Guatemala is obliged to investigate the facts that generated the violations of the American Convention in the instant case, identify those responsible and punish them. 102. With regard to the request relating to the exhumation of the body of Henry Giovanni Contreras, this Court considers that Guatemala should adopt the necessary measures to transfer the mortal remains of this victim to the place chosen by his next of kin, without any cost to them, so as to satisfy the desire of the family to give them appropriate burial, according to their religious beliefs and customs. 103. As for the request to give an educational center the names of the victims, the Court orders the State to designate an educational center with a name allusive to the 86 cf. Garrido and Baigorria case. Reparations, supra note 19, para. 72. 87 cf. Bámaca Velásquez case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 129; Garrido and Baigorria case. Reparations, supra note 19, para. 73; and Paniagua Morales et al. case. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 178 and sixth operative paragraph. 88 cf. Aloeboetoe et al. case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 109; Godínez Cruz case. supra note 3, para. 191; and Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 3, para. 181. 89 El Amparo case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 61. See also, Blake case. Reparations, supra note 13, para. 65; and Suárez Rosero case. Reparations, supra note 15, paras. 79 and 80. 90 Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 87, para. 173. Also, cf. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 2, para. 186; and The Constitutional Court case, supra note 15, para. 123.