5 emotionally overcome the violations committed; it reestablishes social relations; it contributes to avoid repetition of the events; it helps neutralize the power that perpetrators may eventually enjoy; and it entails achieving justice by applying the consequences that are set forth by Law, punishing those who deserve punishment and redressing those who deserve reparation.9 16. That judicial proceedings that continue until their closing and that meet their purpose are the clearest indication of 0 tolerance towards human rights violations and contribute to provide reparation to the victims and show society that justice has been done.10 The State has not complied with this obligation in the instant case. On the contrary, it continues affecting the two surviving victims and the relatives of the fourteen deceased victims. Moreover, the omission by the State fosters repetition of violations, strengthens impunity, and discredits the Rule of Law and dishonors international commitments.11 17. That the information submitted by the parties at this stage for monitoring compliance with Judgment shows that still no progress was made in the investigation of the events that resulted in violations and the identification and potential punishment of those responsible. More than fourteen years after the passing of the Judgment on the merits, the information submitted by the State on this aspect lacks substance as to effective progress and results achieved in the investigation of the events. The State merely referred to its political willingness to initiate the appropriate proceedings and the request for some procedures without specifying which have been practiced or their outcome. In view of this lack of clear, accurate and complete information as regards the measures adopted or to be adopted by the State to comply with this part of the Judgment, the Court finds that the violations declared in the instant case remain unpunished although more than twenty-one years have elapsed from the events. As indicated by the State during the private hearing: “undoubtedly, that is a historical debt of the State of Venezuela and it has to be paid off”. 18. Based on the obligation to guarantee rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the duty to avoid and combat impunity, which has been defined by the Court as “the total lack of investigation, capture, prosecution, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.”12 In that regard, the State “has the obligation to combat that situation with all available legal means, because impunity leads to the chronic repetition of human rights violations and to the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin”.13 This obligation implies the duty of States Parties to the Convention to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is 9 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 20. 10 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of January 27, 2009, Considering clause No. 21, and Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 4 and Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 21. 11 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 21, and Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 20. 12 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 16, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 24, 2009, Considering clause No. 12. 13 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 173; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 8, Considering clause No. 16, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with Judgment, supra note 12, Considering clause No. 12.