of evidence. 208 The investigation must be serious, impartial, and effective, and must be aimed at determining the truth and at pursuing, capturing, prosecuting, and eventually punishing the perpetrators. 209 108. Both the Commission and the Court have referred to the chilling effect that crimes against journalists have on other media professionals as well as on citizens seeking to expose abuses of power or unlawful acts of any kind. 210 This chilling effect can only be avoided “by swift action on the part of the State to punish all perpetrators, as is its duty under international and domestic law.” 211 109. The Court has pointed out that impunity - understood as the absence of investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution, and conviction on the whole - fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations and the total defenselessness of victims and their families. 212 For its part, the IACHR has repeatedly urged the States to “carry out serious, impartial, and effective investigations of the murders, attacks, threats, and acts of intimidation committed against journalists and media workers.” 213 110. In this regard, States have the duty to investigate, identify, prosecute, and punish all perpetrators of these crimes, including direct perpetrators, masterminds, participants, collaborators, and possible accessories to human rights violations. They must also investigate the organizations involved in the execution of the crimes or the criminal organizations to which the perpetrators belong. 214 2. Specific obligations regarding the duty to investigate acts of sexual violence 111. Once they become aware of acts of gender-based sexual violence against women journalists, States must investigate these acts, identify, prosecute, and punish the perpetrators, and provide comprehensive reparation to the victims. This obligation arises from Articles 5, 13, 8, and 25 of the ACHR, within the framework of the general obligation to guarantee rights established in Article 1.1 thereof. This obligation to investigate complaints of sexual violence is provided for in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, which require the State “to take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their I/A Court H.R. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C, No. 212, para. 192. 209 I/A Court H.R. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C, No. 99, para. 127. 210 I/A Court H.R. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C, No. 248. Para. 148; IACHR. Report No. 136/10. Case 12.658. Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo and Family (Colombia). October 23, 2010. Para. 136; IACHR. Report No. 50/99. Case 11.739. Héctor Félix Miranda (Mexico). April 13, 1999. Para. 52; IACHR. Report No. 130/99. Case No. 11.740. Víctor Manuel Oropeza (Mexico). November 19, 1999. Para. 58. See also, IACHR. Annual Report 2010. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter II: Mexico: 2010 Special Report on Freedom of Expression in Mexico. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 5. March 4, 2011. Para. 716. 211 IACHR. Report No. 136/10. Case 12.658. Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo and Family (Colombia). October 23, 2010. Para. 136; IACHR. Report No. 50/99. Case 11.739. Héctor Félix Miranda (Mexico). April 13, 1999. Para. 52; IACHR. Report No. 130/99. Case No. 11.740. Víctor Manuel Oropeza (Mexico). November 19, 1999. Para. 58. See also: IACHR. Annual Report 2010. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter II: Mexico: 2010 Special Report on Freedom of Expression in Mexico. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 5. March 4, 2011. Para. 716. See also: I/A Court H.R. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C, No. 248. Para. 211. 212 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C, No. 74. Para. 186; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C, No. 71. Para. 123; I/A Court H.R. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C, No. 70. Para. 211. 213 IACHR. Annual Report 2012. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter V (Conclusions and Recommendations). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.147. Doc. 1. March 5, 2013. Para. 4(c). See also: IACHR. Annual Report 2009. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter VII (Conclusions and Recommendations). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 51. December 30, 2009. Para. 4(a); IACHR. Annual Report 2010. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter VI (Conclusions and Recommendations). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 5. March 4, 2011. Para. 4(a); IACHR. Annual Report 2011. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter V (Conclusions and Recommendations). OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 69. December 30, 2011. Para. 4(c). 214 IACHR. Annual Report 2013. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Violence against journalists and media workers: Inter-American standards and national practices on prevention, protection and prosecution of perpetrators). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149. Doc. 50. December 31, 2013. Para. 166; IACHR. Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Special study on the status of investigations into the murder of journalists during the 1995-2005 period for reasons that may be related to their work in journalism. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.131. Doc. 35. March 8, 2008. Para. 40. 208 28