30 rights defenders. The fear caused by such an event can directly reduce the possibility of human rights defenders exercising their right to perform their work by means of denunciations. Furthermore, the Court reiterates that the threats and attacks on the lives and personal integrity of human rights defenders, as well as the impunity enjoyed by those responsible for such acts, are particularly grave because they have not only individual, but also collective effects, inasmuch as society is prevented from learning the truth concerning the observance or the violation of the rights of those subject to the jurisdiction of a specific State.56 97. This Court finds that the facts of the present case created an obligation on the part of the State to investigate with respect to the violation of the right to life, personal integrity, and personal liberty of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo. In previous cases, the Court has recognized that from the general obligation to guarantee rights indicated in Article 1(1) of the Convention, gives rise to obligations for the State to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights established in the Convention to all persons subject to its jurisdiction.57 Since its duty as guarantor is related to specific rights, it can be complied with in different ways depending on the right in question and the particular circumstances of the case.58 98. The obligation to investigate human rights violations is among the positive measures that the State must adopt to guarantee the rights established in the Convention. Additionally, the State must, if possible, try to reestablish a right that has been violated and, if applicable, repair the damage produced by human rights violations.59 99. It should be noted that the obligation to investigate does not only arise from the treaty-based norms of international law that bind all States Parties, but also arise from domestic law concerning the obligation to investigate ex officio certain illicit conducts and the norms that allow victims or their next of kin to file complaints in order to participate formally in criminal investigations intended to establish the truth about the facts.60 100. The obligation to investigate is one of means rather than results, and must be undertaken by the State as a juridical obligation and not as a mere formality predestined to be ineffective.61 The State’s obligation to investigate must be carried out diligently in order to avoid impunity and the repetition of facts such as these. In this regard, the Court recalls intimidating effect on the workers of the Peruvian trade union movement and thereby reduced the freedom of a specific group to exercise this right. Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 78 56 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al., supra note 46, para. 76. 57 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 20, para. 167; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 141, and Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 77. 58 Cf. Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 73; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 141, and García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 99. 59 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 20, para. 166; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 142, and Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 58, para. 99. 60 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 58, paras. 102 to 104, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 143. 61 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 20, para. 177; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 144, and Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 58, para. 100.