75 g) to establish a legal support fund for indigent persons; h) to absolutely forbid, in its legislation, the use of solitary confinement of minors during their investigation; and i) to adopt legislation that introduces provisions reflected in the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols pertaining to protection of the civilian population, and of children, in situations of domestic armed conflict, and to inform its security forces of said laws. Pleadings of the State 226. Regarding to the Commission’s claims on reparations, the State expressed, in general terms, that “it accepts the responsibility for the crime committed by [its] police agents, and therefore it will jointly and severally provide reparations for the injuries caused.” Considerations of the Court a) Obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations, to identify and to punish those responsible 227. The Court has found, among others, that the State violated Articles 8 and 25, in combination with Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victim, due to the situation of impunity of the mastermind or masterminds of the facts, and this has generated feelings of insecurity, defenselessness, and anguish in the victims (supra para. 118). 228. The Court recognizes that impunity of those responsible has not been total in the instant case, as two direct perpetrators have been tried and found guilty of the facts (supra para. 67.p). However, at the time of the instant Judgment, after more than thirteen years, the mastermind or masterminds of the facts have not yet been tried or punished. Therefore, this constitutes a situation of grave impunity, which is an infringement of the duty of the State to investigate and punish those responsible for the acts that abridged human rights in the instant case, injuring the next of kin of the victims and fostering chronic recidivism of the human rights violations involved.154 229. This Court has repeatedly referred to the right of the next of kin of the victims to know what happened and who the agents of the State responsible for the facts were.155 As the Court has pointed out, ““[w]henever there has been a human rights violation, the State has a duty to investigate the facts and punish those responsible, [...] and this obligation must be complied with seriously and not as a mere formality”.156 154 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 272; Case of Bulacio, supra note 6, para. 120; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 15, paras. 143 and 185. 155 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 273; Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 100; and Case of Cantoral Benavides. Reparations, supra note 108, para. 69. 156 See Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 5, para. 273; Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations, supra note 116, para. 100; and Case of Cantoral Benavides. Reparations, supra note 108, para. 69.