5 18. The Court manifests that in the present case an effective and complete investigation has yet to be undertaken, given that some 19 years after the commencement of legal proceedings to settle the wrongs suffered by Mr. Bayarri, there have been no significant advancements whatsoever. Furthermore, the Tribunal has previously stated in its jurisprudence that the obligation to prosecute, single out, and when necessary, punish perpetrators so as to uncover the truth is one of the foremost rulings in its judgments because it enables a moral reckoning for the victims; allows the emotional healing process to begin; reestablishes social relations; contributes to prevent the repetition of similar acts; helps to eliminate any possible power advantage the perpetrators may come to possess; and, signifies the triumph of the rule of law in that punishment and reparation are apportioned to those to whom they rightfully correspond.4 19. The Tribunal notes that when the international judicial process is complete and a judgment is rendered, it is then incumbent upon the State to avoid repeating the same conduct that led to the litigation in the first place. The judgment and the damages ordered therein are aimed at providing a new framework and vision that permit resolution of the controversy in an effective and timely fashion.5 Consequently, “[a] trial that is carried until its conclusion and fulfills its mandate represents an unequivocal condemnation of human rights violations, contributes to the reparation of the victims, and demonstrates to society that justice has been done.”6 The State of Argentina has not achieved any such satisfaction in the present case. Quite the contrary: impunity continues to afflict the victim. Furthermore, in its Judgment, this Court reiterated “to the State its obligation to ensure that the victim enjoy full access to and the ability to participate in all stages and instances of the trial in which [he himself] is the plaintiff [...], in full compliance with domestic law and the norms present in the American Convention, including but not limited to the duty to guarantee protection against harassment and threats aimed at distorting the judicial process, preventing an official clarification of the facts, or unlawfully encumbering those responsible for achieving these ends. When the victim decries the use of judicial resources as a tool of intimidation, the State must guarantee the victim’s right to be heard before an independent and impartial tribunal with all applicable due process rights that pertain thereto.”7 20. This Court notes the sparse information that the State has submitted regarding its obligation to conclude the aforementioned criminal proceedings. Nonetheless, the Court has ascertained by means of a certified correspondence issued by Criminal Trial Chamber No. 39 4 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, Considering Clause twenty; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, Considering Clause nineteen; and, Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, Considering Clause sixteen. 5 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 4, Considering clause twenty-four; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 4, Considering Clause seventeen; and, Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 4, 2010, Considering Clause twenty. 6 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, Considering Clause twentyone; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 4, Considering Clause twenty-one; and, Case of El Amparo v. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, supra note 5, Considering Clause sixteen. 7 Cf. Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 176.