10. A principle reiterated by this Court is that the investigation should be conducted using all available legal means, and aimed at determining the truth and the investigation, arrest, prosecution and possible punishment of those responsible for the facts, especially when State agents are involved.11 Thus, the State must exhaust all lines of investigation into all those allegedly involved in the alleged torture and subsequent execution of the child Vargas Areco. 11. In this regard, the Court deems it appropriate to reiterate that States cannot invoke domestic reasons to avoid pre-established international responsibility.12 Once the international process has been completed and the Judgment has been passed, the State must avoid the repetition of the conduct that led to litigation. The Judgment, and the reparations thereof, should provide a new framework and a new vision that makes it possible to effectively and promptly overcome the problems so identified.13 Thus it is unacceptable to use any obstacles of domestic law in order to impede the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious violations of human rights such as torture or summary, extrajudicial and arbitrary executions.14 A contrary interpretation would negate the effectiveness of the provisions of the Convention in the domestic law of States parties, and would deprive international procedure of one of its main functions, fostering the impunity of those responsible.15 12. In view of the foregoing, this Court considers that the application under way that shall be made to the State Prosecutor General, so that an investigation is opened into other possible suspects of alleged torture, is a principle of execution of this reparation measure. However, it is still necessary that the State take all measures to carry out diligent and effective investigations to identify, prosecute and, if necessary, punish those responsible for the alleged acts of torture suffered by the child Gerardo Vargas Areco. Therefore, the Court is waiting for updated information on whether the investigation request was accordingly made to the Office of the Public Prosecutor and the measures taken to this regard. b) Regarding operative paragraph ten of the Judgment 11 Cf. Case Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, Reparations and Costs.Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 148; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs.Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 256, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs.Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 111. 12 Cf. International responsibility for the issuance and application of laws that violate the Convention, supra note 3, para. 35; Case of Tristán Donoso,supranote 2, Considering Clause five, andCase of Ivcher Bronstein,supranote 2, Consideraning Clause four. 13 Cf.Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala Monitoring compliance with Judgment.Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, Considering Clause twenty four, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador Monitoring compliance with Judgment.Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 3, 2010, Considering Clause seventeen. 14 In a similar sense, in the Judgment on merits in this case, the Court held that "according to the constant jurisprudence of the Court, based on international law, [...]no law or provision of a domestic law may prevent a State from complying with their duty, recognized by the Court, to investigate and punish those responsible for certain human rights violations, such as those found in this case." Cf. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 7, para. 156. 15 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Monitoring compliance with Judgment.Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of September 9, 2003, Considering Clause twelve; Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia.Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 17, 2009, Considering Clause twenty six, and Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia.Monitoring compliance with Judgment.Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 27, 2003, Considering Clause nine.