31 that impunity encourages the repetition of human rights violations.62 101. In light of this obligation, as soon as the State authorities become aware of the facts, they must initiate, ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation by all lawful means available in order to determine the truth and to ensure the pursuit, capture, trial, and eventual punishment, if applicable, of all the authors of the facts, especially when State agents are or may be involved.63 To ensure this objective, the State must have, inter alia, an effective system to protect the judiciary, the witnesses, and the victims and their next of kin. In addition, it is also necessary to verify the existence of complex criminal structures and the connections that make such violations possible.64 102. Furthermore, the absence of a complete and effective investigation into the facts constitutes a source of additional suffering and anguish for victims and their next of kin, who have the right to know the truth of what happened.65 This right to the truth requires a procedural determination of the most complete historical truth possible, including the determination of patterns of collective action and of all those who, in different ways, took part in the said violations, as well as their corresponding responsibilities.66 103. The next of kin of the victims also have the right to reparations for the damage they have suffered and the States have the obligation to provide them.67 In this regard, the State has a binding obligation to repair directly those human rights violations for which it is responsible, according to the standards for attributing international responsibility and for reparation established in the Court’s case law. Moreover, the State must ensure that satisfaction of the claims for reparation made by victims of human rights violations and their next of kin is not impeded or obstructed by excessively complicated procedures or other obstacles to the reparation of their rights.68 104. In this case, the assessment of the obligation to guarantee the rights to life, to humane treatment, and to personal liberty through a serious, complete, and effective investigation into the facts is made in Chapter VIII of this judgment. For the purpose of determining a violation of Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, it is sufficient to indicate that, in this case, the State has not guaranteed the said rights effectively. 105. In conclusion, in accordance with the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility in the instant case, the Court finds that the State did not comply with its duty to adopt the reasonable measures required to guarantee effectively the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment, and life of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, who was in grave danger due to the public denunciations he made as part of his work as a human rights defender during 62 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 17, para. 173; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 244, and Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 122. 63 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 30, para. 143; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 92, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 144. 64 Cf. Case of La Rochela Massacre, supra note 21, para. 194. 65 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 20, para. 181; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 146, and Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 58, para. 102. 66 Cf. Case of La Rochela Massacre, supra note 21, para. 195. 67 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 58, para. 103 and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 146. 68 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 21, para. 219; Case of La Rochela Massacre, supra note 21, para. 195, and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 21.