5 11. The Court considers it necessary to affirm once more that under the obligation to respect rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the obligation to avoid and combat impunity, which the Court has defined as “the absence of any investigation, pursuit, arrest, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for the violations of human rights.” In order to discharge such duty the State has to combat this situation by all available legal means, because “impunity leads to the chronic repetition of the human rights violations and to the total defenselessness of the victims and of their next of kin.”2 In such sense, the failure to apprehend those responsible, besides perpetuating uncertainty in the victims as to the risks they run, evidences that in the case the State has not adopted the adequate measures in order to enforce its own decisions. This Court has pointed out already that failure to comply with court rulings is in itself an infringement of the judicial protection guarantee,3 and undermines the right to a fair trial. 12. That, as relates to operative paragraph number five, with which compliance is still pending, the Tribunal points out, along with the representatives and the Commission, that the information the State submitted in the course of the hearing is the same it has filed before with regard to the steps taken regarding the arrest of Juan Valencia Osorio, who was convicted by the domestic jurisdiction in the case of the extrajudicial execution of Myrna Mack Chang and who is at present fleeing from justice. Consequently, this Court considers that the State has not provided detailed and updated information about compliance with the obligations stemming from such operative paragraph. 13. That by reason of all the foregoing, the Court considers it essential for the State to adopt specific measures in order to fulfill promptly and fully its obligation to comply with the judgment rendered by the judicial authorities with domestic jurisdiction, in relation with operative paragraph number five in the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs rendered on November 25, 2003 (supra Having Seen Clause Number 1). On account of the foregoing, the State must submit to this Court detailed and updated information about the measures adopted in order to comply with such obligation. Therefore: The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, by virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its own decisions pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on 2 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment rendered on March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 244, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 167. 3 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 82; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Judgment delivered on February 7, 2005. Series C No. 144, para. 220, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 72.