those responsible for the violations declared, as well as the search for the truth. Indeed, if the State apparatus acts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and it does not restore to the victims, insofar as possible, all their rights, it can be said that it has failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of these rights to the persons subject to its jurisdiction.398 The concept underlying this consideration is that a trial conducted to its completion and that fulfills its purpose is the clearest signal of zero tolerance for grave human rights violations, contributes to the reparation of the victims, and shows society that justice has been done.399 C. Obligation to open an investigation ex officio 250. The Commission indicated that the Salvadoran authorities had not opened an investigation of the massacres ex officio, which meant that, from December 13, 1981, until October 26, 1990, the date on which Pedro Chicas Romero filed a complaint, no official inquiry into the events was conducted. Thus, the investigations into the massacres began nine years after they occurred and as a result of a complaint filed by a survivor and not on the initiative of the State of El Salvador. According to the Commission this failure to act cannot be justified by the lack of public knowledge about the facts, because there is evidence that, as early as 1982, the international media had reported the massacres. Consequently, it considered that the absence of an investigation ex officio by the State into the massacres constituted in itself a violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin. The representatives asked that the Court declare the State responsible for not having opened an immediate investigation into the events ex officio, so that, owing to the delay in the start of the investigations, information was lost that was essential to clarify the facts. 251. In this case it has been proved that, in January 1982, the possible occurrence of a massacre perpetrated by the Armed Forces was made public, without the corresponding authorities undertaking any kind of investigation. To the contrary, as established, the Salvadoran authorities systematically denied and concealed the facts (supra paras. 73 to 77). In this regard, the Truth Commission emphasized that both the Minister of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time were aware “of the occurrence of the massacre and failed to undertake any investigation.”400 It was not until 1990, when most of the forcibly displaced survivors returned to El Salvador, that one of the survivors was able to file a complaint. This means that for nine years the State failed to open an investigation. Thus, the initial complaint was filed on October 26, 1990, by Pedro Chicas Romero before the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera.401 In other words, for nine years the State failed to open an investigation that would ensure that the evidence allowing what happened to be determined was obtained promptly and preserved. 252. Consequently, the Court concludes that, at least since 1982, the State should have initiated ex officio and without delay a serious, impartial and effective investigation into all the facts of the massacre related to the violation of the right to life and also to other specific violations against personal integrity, such as the supposed torture and acts of violence against women from a gender perspective and in accordance with Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, and the specific obligations established in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 398 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 176, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil, para. 140. 399 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, twenty-first considering paragraph, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra nota 18, para. 153. 400 Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, From madness to hope: the 12-year war in El Salvador, 19921993 (evidence file, tome II, annex 1 to the submission of the case, folio 1202). 401 Cf. Complaint filed before the Second First Instance Court of San Francisco Gotera by Pedro Chicas Romero on October 26, 1990 (evidence file, tome III, annex 23 to the submission of the case, folios 1649 to 1652). 82