43 upon citizen security, for the purpose of having them become aware of the respect due human rights” have continued to be held. Considerations by the Court 93. In this chapter the Tribunal shall determine those measures of satisfaction aimed at providing reparation for non pecuniary damage, of a non pecuniary nature, as well as providing for public actions or works reaching the general public.54 a) Obligation to investigate into the events constituting the violations in the instant case, and to identify, prosecute, and punish those responsible 94. The Tribunal has established that, after six years, impunity for the events in the instant case still prevails. The Court has defined impunity as the overall failure to investigate, pursue, capture, prosecute and convict those responsible for the violations of the rights protected under the American Convention.55 The State has de obligation to struggle against such a state of affairs by all available means, for it fosters chronic recurrence of violations of human rights and renders the victims and their next of kin completely defenseless.56 95. Likewise, the next of kin of victims of serious human rights violations have the right to know the truth. Such right to the truth, when recognized and exercised in a specific situation, becomes an important means of reparation for the victims and their next of kin and gives rise to an expectation the state must fulfill. On the other hand, knowing the truth makes it easier for Venezuelan society to look for other ways to prevent such kinds of violations in the future.57 96. Consequently, the next of kin of the victims have the right, and the States the obligation, to have the events which affected the former effectively investigated by State authorities, to have the suspects of such offenses prosecuted and, were it the case, to have them punished as fit.58 97. In view of the foregoing, the State must earnestly take all necessary action to identify, judge and punish all perpetrators and plotters of the violations committed to the detriment of Messrs. Oscar José Blanco-Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández-Paz and José Francisco Rivas-Fernández, to all criminal effects and to all other effects the investigation of the events might have, even in the cases of Messrs. Roberto Javier Hernández-Paz and José Francisco Rivas-Fernández wherein the inquests were closed 54 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 294; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 93; and Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 44, para. 163. 55 Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 295; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 95; and Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 170. 56 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 297; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 95; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 54, para. 203. 57 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 297; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 96; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 54, para. 204. 58 Cf. 113; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 43, para. Cf. Case of 19 Tradesman, supra note 42, para. 187; Case of Las Palmeras. Judgment of September 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 65