b) Remove all the obstacles to the proper investigation of the facts in the corresponding proceedings so as to avoid the repetition of what happened in this case.307 Thus, in cases of grave human rights violations, such as, in the instant case, the extrajudicial executions (supra paras. 93 to 97), the State may not apply amnesty laws, or argue prescription, non-retroactivity of criminal law, res judicata, or the non bis in idem principle or any similar mechanism to waive responsibility, in order to avoid this obligation;308 c) Ensure that the different organs of the judicial system involved in the case have the necessary human and material resources to perform their duties in an appropriate, independent and impartial manner, and that those who participate in the investigation, including victims, witnesses and agents of justice, have the necessary guarantees of safety309 and means of transport to give testimony, and refrain from acts that obstruct the progress of the investigative process, and d) Ensure the full access and capacity to act of the survivors and the victims’ next of kin at all stages of this investigation, in accordance with domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention. In addition, the results of the proceedings must be publicized so that society can know the facts of the case and those responsible.310 2. Identification and repatriation of the mortal remains of the deceased victims 250. The representatives asked the Court to order the Dominican State to ensure the repatriation of the remains of the deceased victims to their next of kin. The Inter-American Commission did not refer to this aspect. 251. The State submitted documentation showing that State officials are unaware of the final location of the mortal remains of the deceased victims. 252. The Court concluded that the right of the victims’ next of kin to know the whereabouts of the remains of their loved ones constitutes not only a requirement of the right to know the truth, but also a measure of reparation and, consequently, gives rise to the corresponding obligation of the State to satisfy these reasonable expectations. The failure to identify and return the remains to their next of kin was an expression of degrading and discriminatory treatment, in violation of Articles 5(1) and 1(1) of the Convention to the detriment of the deceased and their next of kin (supra para. 117). 253. Consequently, the Court orders that, within one year of notification of this Judgment, the State must determine the whereabouts of the bodies and, following genetic proof of relationship, by mutual agreement with the next of kin or the representatives, they must be repatriated to Haiti and delivered to the next of kin. In addition, the State must assume the said expenses and, as appropriate, the funeral costs.311 307 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 226, and Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, para. 240. 308 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits, supra, paras. 41 a 44 and Case of González Medina and Family Members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 285.e). 309 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 186(d), and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 257(e). 310 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 258. 311 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 185, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 270. 67