6 account of the statute of limitations, it undertook to adopt the necessary measures so that the competent body might seek proper recourse. 9. That the representatives pointed out that there had been no substantial changes in the legal situation of the cases pertaining to the Caracazo, wherefore impunity still prevails six years after Judgment was rendered and almost twenty years after the occurrence of the facts of the instant case. In this regard, they pointed out that among the 45 cases pertaining to the Caracazo which were referred to the Court, only two had proceeded beyond the investigation stage into public oral proceedings. The other 43 cases were still in the investigation stage after sixteen years. In none of the above cases a condemnatory judgment against those responsible for the facts had been rendered. Quite the opposite, the representatives informed that in one of the two cases that had proceeded into public oral proceedings, in 2006 the Constitutional Chamber had confirmed the discontinuance of the proceedings on account of the statute of limitations. At the private hearing, the representatives reiterated that 98 percent of the cases had not proceeded beyond the investigation stage and that the victims’ next of kin had not been heard. 10. That the Commission noted that said obligation had not been complied with, as the State had not taken any concrete steps aimed to determine the truth; rather, it had merely kept the criminal proceedings open without any substantial progress being achieved. In this regard, at the private hearing, the Commission reiterated that no progress had been made in the investigations and referred to the judgment in which the Constitutional Chamber declared the discontinuance of the proceedings on account of the statute of limitations. 11. That regarding the obligation to investigate serious violations of human rights such as extra-judicial executions and forced disappearance of persons, the Court has repeatedly established that it is a duty of the State to be fulfilled pursuant to the international standards set by international rules and decisions. In prior cases, the Court has ruled that the obligation of the State to investigate and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the facts, is to be diligently complied with in order to avoid impunity and the repetition of facts such as the ones described in the instant case.6 Specifically, the Court has upheld that “[…] in compliance with its obligation to investigate and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the facts, the State must remove all obstacles, both factual and legal, contributing to impunity and use all available means to expedite the investigation and the relevant proceedings [...].”7 Furthermore, it pointed out that the State must guarantee to the disappeared victims’ next of kin the availability of the necessary means for their effective participation in the investigation and judicial proceeding of the case.8 6 Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 402; Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 100; and Case of Blake v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of January 22, 2009, Considering clause 10. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 173, para. 226; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 6, 2008, Considering clause 15; and Case of Castillo-Páez v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of April 3, 2009, Considering clause 13. 7 8 Case of Castillo-Páez v. Peru, supra note 7, Considering clause 13.