76 230. The Court deems that victims of grave human rights violations and their next of kin, if applicable, have the right to know the truth. Therefore, the next of kin of the victims in the instant case have the right to be informed of everything that happened in connection with said violations. This right to the truth has been developed by International Human Rights Law;157 when it is acknowledged and exercised in a concrete situation, this constitutes an important means of reparation. Therefore, it gives rise to an expectation of the next of kin of the victim that the State must satisfy.158 231. In light of the above, to redress this aspect of the violations, the State must effectively investigate the facts of the instant case, with the aim of identifying, trying, and punishing all the masterminds and other persons responsible for the detention, torture, and extra-legal execution of Rafael Samuel and Emilio Moisés Gómez Paquiyauri. For this, it must take such judicial and administrative steps as may be necessary to reopen the investigation of the facts of the instant case and locate, try, and punish the mastermind or masterminds of said facts. The next of kin of the victims must have full access and the ability to act in all stages and instances of said investigations, pursuant to domestic legislation and the provisions of the American Convention. The State must also ensure effective compliance with the decision reached by the domestic courts, to fulfill this obligation. The outcome of the proceeding must be made known to the public, for Peruvian society to know the truth. 232. The Court notes that the State must ensure that the domestic proceeding to investigate and punish those responsible of the facts of this case attains its appropriate effects. The State must also abstain from resorting to measures such as amnesty, extinguishment, and measures designed to eliminate responsibility, as well as measures that seek to impede criminal prosecution or to suppress the effects of the conviction. 233. Regarding to fulfillment of this obligation to investigate and punish, the Court has established that: […]all amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and forced 157 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 274; Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 114; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 76; See, for example, United Nations Human Rights Committee, Quinteros v. Uruguay, Communication No. 107/1981, decision of 21 July 1983; United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Subcommittee on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 49th session, Informe final revisado acerca de la cuestión de la impunidad de los autores de violaciones de los derechos humanos (derechos civiles y políticos) preparado por L. Joinet, UN General Assembly Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1; and United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Subcommittee on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 45th session, Estudio relativo al derecho de restitución, indemnización y rehabilitación a las víctimas de violaciones flagrantes de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, Final report submitted by Theo van Boven, Special Rapporteur, E/CN.4/Sub .2/1993/8. 158 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 274; Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 114; Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 76; and Case of Castillo Páez, supra note 26, para. 90.