Bolivia to investigate and punish the crimes committed against José Carlos Trujillo Oroza from being carried out effectively, and allowed impunity to continue in this case. 98. Finally, the Court takes into consideration that Bolivia has indicated that the draft law before the Congress of Bolivia has been approved in first debate by the Chamber of Deputies and is following its normal process. However, this Court considers that the request that the State should be ordered to define the forced disappearance of persons as an offense in its domestic legislation is in order and deems that reparation should only be considered complete when the draft becomes a law of the Republic and enters into force, and this should occur within a reasonable time after notification of this judgment. * * * 99. As for the demand that the Court declare that Bolivia should investigate and punish the perpetrators of the facts in this case and their accessories; in the first place, this Court should indicate that the American Convention guarantees access to justice to all persons in order to protect their rights and that the States Parties have the obligation to prevent, investigate, identify and punish the perpetrators of or accessories to human rights violations59. In other words, any human right violation entails the State’s obligation to make an effective investigation in order to identify those responsible for the violations and, when appropriate, punish them. 100. On many occasions, this Court has referred to the right of the next of kin of the victims to know what happened and the identity of the State agents responsible for the facts60. As the Court has indicated, “[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”61. 101. The State has the obligation to avoid and combat impunity, which the Court has defined as “the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention”62. In this respect, the Court has indicated that: 59 cf. The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 4, para. 198; Ivcher Bronstein case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 186; and Blake case. Reparations, supra note 45, para. 61. 60 cf. Cantoral Benavides case, supra note 3, para. 69; The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 3, para. 100; and The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 4, para. 200. 61 El Amparo case. Reparations (Article 63(1), American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 14, 1996. Series C No. 28, para. 61. Similarly, cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 69; Cesti Hurtado case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 62; and The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 3, para. 100. 62 Paniagua Morales et al. case. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173. Similarly, cf. Cesti Hurtado case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 63; The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 4, para. 201; and Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 59, para. 186.