In addition, the Court considers it pertinent to reiterate, as it has in other cases, that, in compliance with its obligation to guarantee the right to know the truth, States may establish truth commissions, which contribute to the creation and preservation of the historical memory, the elucidation of the facts, and the determination of the institutional, social and political responsibilities during certain historical periods of a society.482 Nevertheless, this does not complete or substitute for the State’s obligation to establish the truth through judicial proceedings;483 hence, the State had the obligation to open and expedite criminal investigations to determine the corresponding responsibilities. In the instant case the Court finds that it is not appropriate to make a ruling on the alleged violation of this provision, without detriment to the analysis already made under the right of access to justice and the obligation to investigate. G. Conclusion 299. Almost 32 years have passed since the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places occurred, and no serious and exhaustive criminal proceeding have been held to identify the masterminds and perpetrators, and all the truth about the events are still not known. Thus, a situation of total impunity prevails, shielded by the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace. It has been verified that, from the time the investigations began, they have been characterized by a lack of diligence, thoroughness and seriousness. In particular, the failure to comply with the obligation to open an investigation ex officio and to expedite the necessary measures, the absence of clear and logical lines of investigation that would have taken into account the context and complexity of the events, the periods of procedural inactivity, the refusal to provide information on the military operations, the lack of diligence and thoroughness in the implementation of the investigations by the authorities responsible for them, the delay in carrying out the judicial inspections and the exhumations, as well as the decision to dismiss the proceedings issued in application of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace, allow the Court to conclude that the domestic criminal proceedings have not constituted an effective remedy to guarantee the rights of access to justice and to know the truth by the investigation and eventual punishment of those responsible, and comprehensive reparation for the consequences of the violations. 300. In short, it has been verified that, in the instant case, the State’s was organized as a means and resource for perpetrating the violation of the rights that it should have respected and ensured,484 and this has been aided by a situation of impunity of these grave violations, encouraged and tolerated by the highest State authorities, who have obstructed the course of the investigation. The Court notes that the criminal proceedings have been archived for more than 19 years owing to the decision to dismiss them, without having individualized prosecuted and, eventually, punished any of those responsible. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the State failed to conduct a serious, diligent and exhaustive investigation ex officio, within a reasonable term, into all the facts relating to the massacres of El Mozote and nearby places. Consequently, the Court considers it essential that, as soon as possible, the State rectify the conditions of impunity verified in this case by removing all the obstacles, de facto and de jure, that have promoted and maintained it.485 301. Therefore, the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and for the violation of the obligations established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women “Convention of Belém do Pará,” to the detriment of the 481 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, para. 274, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 173. 482 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 128, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 135. 483 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, para. 128, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 135. 484 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, para. 66, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 155. 485 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, para. 277, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 128. 99