21 the events may be known within a reasonable time and that those eventually found responsible be punished.” 69 The Court has also written that from Article 8 of the American Convention it follows that “victims of human rights violations or their next of kin must have ample opportunities to be heard and to take part in the respective proceedings, both in order to shed on the facts, to see that those responsible are punished, and to seek the reparations to which they are entitled.” 70 The Court has held that States have an obligation to combat impunity by every legal means available, since “impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations, and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives” and that impunity means the “failure to investigate, prosecute, take into custody, try and convict those responsible for violations of rights protected by the American Convention”. 71 74. In its Article XVIII, the American Declaration protects the right to a fair trial. As the IACHR has observed, in its preamble the American Declaration states “that juridical and political institutions of states have as their principal aim the protection of human rights” and, therefore, “these provisions of international law impose on the State the basic obligation to respect and guarantee, in consequence of which every violation of the rights recognized by the Declaration (…) that may be ascribed under the rules of international law to acts or omissions by any public authority constitutes an act for which the State is responsible.” 72 In others cases of serious violations of human rights such as the right to life, the IACHR has decided that the State is responsible for violation of Article XVIII of the American Declaration when it has failed in its duty to investigate human rights violations in an adequate, timely and effective manner. 73 75. The organs of the inter-American system have held that the State has an obligation to conduct an effective, prompt and efficient investigation in cases of torture. Thus, for example, the IACHR has written that “in light of the general obligation of the States party to respect and ensure the rights of all persons under their jurisdiction, contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the duty to immediately and ex officio begin an effective investigation to identify, try, and punish those responsible, when there is a complaint or there are grounds to believe that an act of torture has been committed in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention.” 74 76. According to the case law of the inter-American system, the obligation to investigate human rights violations is among the positive measures that States must take to ensure the rights I/A Court H.R., Rochela Massacre v. Colombia Case. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru Case. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas Areco. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 101; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 289. 69 70 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 192 [translation ours]; I/A Court H.R., Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 192, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 176. 71 I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 170 citing I/A Court H.R., Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173. 72 IACHR, Report No. 60/99, Case No. 11.516, Ovelário Tames, Brazil, April 13, 1999, para. 29. 73 See, for example, IACHR, Report No. 24/98, Case 11.287, João Canuto de Oliveira, Brazil, para. 67; IACHR, Report No. 60/99, Case No. 11.516, Ovelário Tames, Brazil, April 13,1999, paragraphs 40-42. 74 IACHR, Report 88/08, Case 12.449, Teodoro Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores, October 30, 2008, para. 158, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para.159. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 54.