322. In Chapter X of this judgment, the Court declared the violation of the right to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection owing to the absence of investigation, prosecution and eventual punishment of those responsible for the facts. Taking this into account, as well as its case law, the Court orders that the State must conduct an effective criminal investigation into the facts of this case in order to elucidate them, determine the corresponding criminal responsibilities, and apply the punishments and consequences established by law.405 This obligation must be fulfilled within a reasonable time, observing the criteria for investigations in this type of case,406 inter alia: a) The pertinent investigations must be conducted taking into consideration the relationship between the different facts of the case, avoiding omissions in gathering evidence and in following up on logical lines of investigation; b) The masterminds and perpetrators of the violations committed must be identified and individualized. Due diligence in the investigation signifies that all the competent State authorities are obliged to collaborate in gathering evidence and must abstain from acts that obstruct the course of the investigative procedure, and c) The competent authorities must conduct the corresponding investigations ex officio and to this end must have available and use all the logistic and scientific resources necessary to gather and process the evidence; moreover the safety of the persons who take part in the investigation, including the victims’ next of kin, the witnesses and the agents of justice, must be duly guaranteed. 323. In addition, in accordance with its case law,407 and given the specific characteristics of the case, the Court recalls that, in principle, the deprivation of the right to life constitutes a grave violation of human rights and, as such, its investigation cannot be subject to mechanisms such as amnesty to the benefit of the perpetrators, or to any other similar provisions, such as the statute of limitations, non-retroactivity of criminal law, res judicata, ne bis in idem, or any other similar means of waiving responsibility. 324. The Court, as it has also established in its case law,408 considers that the State must ensure full access and capacity to act to the victims’ next of kin at all stages of the investigation and prosecution of those responsible, in keeping with domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention. Also, the results of the corresponding proceedings must be publicized so that Venezuelan society is aware of the facts that are the purpose of this case, as well as those responsible. 325. Lastly, as it has on other occasions,409 the Court orders that, pursuant to the pertinent disciplinary provisions, the State must examine any possible investigative and procedural irregularities related to the instant case and, as appropriate, the conduct of the corresponding public servants. 405 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 174, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011 Series C No. 232, para. 185. 406 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 151, para. 216, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”), supra note 384, para. 256. 407 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41, and Case of Vera Vera et al., supra note 39, para. 177. 408 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118, and Case of Contreras et al., supra note 405, para. 187. 409 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 59, para. 233(d), and Case of Contreras et al., supra note 405, para. 188 100