5 13. That in such regard, in accordance with the case law12 and the Judgment, the Court recalls that “the next of kin of Mr. Baldeón García are entitled to, and the State has the duty to procure, an effective investigation of the events involving the victims by state authorities, proceedings against the alleged perpetrators and if applicable, the appropriate penalties imposed to redress the damage sustained by said next-of-kin”.13 Otherwise, they would be creating, in a climate of impunity, the conditions that will allow these events to continue repeating.14 14. That in order to effectively comply with this obligation, the State must adopt all the judicial and administrative measures necessary to expedite the investigation into the facts of the case at hand. Besides, the next-of-kin of Bernabé Baldeón García or his representatives must have full access and capacity to act at all stages and before all instances of the proceeding, in keeping with domestic law and the norms of the American Convention, releasing the next-of-kin or their representatives from the burden to expedite proceedings. Likewise, the State must guarantee the effective compliance with the decision adopted in the domestic jurisdiction in order to fulfill this obligation.15 15. That the Tribunal notes that the State has not provided sufficient information to determine the status of compliance with this obligation. In this sense, the Tribunal considers it is essential for the State to present updated, detailed and full information on the actions taken and the progress made in the procedure. Furthermore, the Court urges the State to adopt all necessary measures to, within a reasonable time, identify, prosecute and punish, if applicable, the responsible. * * * 16. That regarding the obligation to publish within six months, at least once, in the official gazette and in another nationwide daily newspaper, the Section of this Judgment entitled Proven Facts, and the operating paragraphs, the State informed that "this obligation has been partially fulfilled with the publication in the Official Gazette of the Ministerial Order Nº 169-2007-JUS, dated May 30, 2007 [and that it was pending] the obligation to publish in another nationwide newspaper. According to the State, “the Executive Secretariat of the Human Rights National Council requested the General Secretariat of the Ministry of Justice to take the corresponding actions so that the Peruvian State complies with the publication of the judgments delivered by the Inter-American Court in a nationwide newspaper". 17. That, regarding this aspect, the representatives confirmed that the section entitled Proven Facts and the operating paragraphs of the Judgment [...] "were published in "El 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C Nº 4, para. 181; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 102; and Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 81. 13 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra nota 6, para. 167. 14 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 156; Case of La Cantuta v. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 115; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 76. 15 Cf. Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 12 para. 233; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C Nº 187, para. 176.