-5156. In the international jurisdiction, the parties and the matter in dispute are, by definition, different from those in the domestic jurisdiction.16 As it has on other occasions,17 when examining possible violations of rights embodied Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, the Court has powers to establish the State’s international responsibility as a result of the alleged violation of those rights, but not to investigate and punish the individual conduct of State agents. 57. In similar cases, the Court has stated that “[i]n order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations, owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings.”18 58. Accordingly, given the characteristics of the case and the nature of the alleged violations, the Court must examine all the domestic judicial proceedings to gain a thorough understanding of them and establish whether these proceedings ran counter to the standards concerning judicial guarantees and protection, as well as the right to an effective recourse, embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 59. The proven facts have established that, following the petition for habeas corpus filed by the mother of the Serrano Cruz sisters (supra para. 48(15)), two domestic courts heard the case: the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador heard the habeas corpus procedure and the Chalatenango Trial Court heard the criminal proceedings. The Court will now examine the alleged violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention in relation to these two proceedings. 60. On repeated opportunities, the Court has declared that the State has the obligation to avoid and combat impunity, which the Court has defined as “the absence of any investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for the violations of rights protected by the American Convention.”19 In this regard, the Court has cautioned that: [...] the State has the obligation to combat that situation with all available legal means, because impunity leads to the chronic repetition of human rights violations and to the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin.20 61. The Court has repeatedly stated that the obligation to investigate must be complied with “in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be 16 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 73; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 181; and Case of Cesti Hurtado. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 26, 1999. Series C No. 49, para. 47. 17 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 92; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 73; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 181. 18 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 133; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 182; and Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 4, para. 146. 19 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 148; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 175; and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 126. 20 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 126; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 95; and Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 255.