prison authorities.” 715 B.2.2) Considerations of the Court on the obligation to investigate, prosecute and duly punish those presumed responsible, and their place of detention 459. The Court emphasizes that, when exercising its punitive powers, the State’s actions should be guided by rationality and proportionality, thus avoiding both the leniency characteristic of impunity, and also excesses and abuse in the determination of punishments. 716 In light of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, States have a general obligation to ensure respect for the human rights protected by the Convention, and the duty to prosecute wrongful acts that violate rights recognized in the Convention is derived from this obligation. However, this prosecution should be consequent with the obligation to guarantee the rights in question; hence, illusory measures that only appear to meet the formal requirements of justice should be avoided. 717 460. The obligation to investigate includes the investigation, identification, processing, trial, and punishment, as appropriate, of those responsible. Although this is an obligation of means, this does not signify that the person convicted does not have to serve his sentence in the terms in which it is decreed. 718 461. The Court notes that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has indicated, specifically with regard to Colombia, that the “[i]llegal granting of benefits to members of the Army detained in military facilities or convicted for extrajudicial executions can become a form of impunity.” 719 462. The Court considers that the arguments of the representatives on this point relate to two factors: (i) the alleged benefits received by the former Commander of the Cavalry School during his incarceration, and (ii) the confinement of those convicted in military establishments, which would encourage the concession of benefits or privileges. In this regard, the Court notes that the representatives requested the application of the precedent of the case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. However, the Court underlines that, contrary to that case, in the instant case neither of the two judgments is final and the individuals convicted have not receive undue benefits relating to a reduction in their sentences, which, in principle, are not disproportionate. 463. On the first point, the representatives argued that the former Commander of the Cavalry School had received privileges or benefits that have prevented him serving his sentence in the terms in which it was imposed, because he has left his place of confinement; he has been allowed to received journalists without a court order; he has the same accommodation as an officer of the Infantry School on active duty, and he is allowed to give classes to soldiers and civilians who are students of the Military University. The Court recalls that the undue granting of benefits may eventually lead to a form of impunity, particularly in the case of the perpetration of egregious human rights violations, as in this 715 Judgment of the Superior Court of Bogota of October 24, 2014 (evidence file, folio 38495). 716 Cf. Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009, para. 87. 717 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008, para. 203, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, footnote 225. 718 Mutatis mutandi, Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 165. 719 Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Colombia, A/HRC/19/21/Add.3, of 31 January 2012, para. 36, Available at: http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session19/A-HRC-19-21-Add3_en.pdf. 162