26 68. Under operative paragraph twelve of the judgment the Court delivered on the merits on August 18, 2000, the State is to order an investigation to determine the persons responsible for the violations of human rights referred to in [the] judgment, and punish them. Hence, it understands that the reparations the State must undertake necessarily include effective investigation of the events and punishment of all those responsible. 69. This Court has made repeated reference to the right of victims and their next of kin to know the fate of the victims52 and the identity of the State agents responsible for the events. “Whenever 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”.53 This Court has also held that the State “is obliged to combat [impunity] by all available legal means, because [impunity] encourages the chronic repetition of human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin.”54 A State that allows human rights violations to go unpunished is also failing to comply with its general duty to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights to persons subject to its jurisdiction.55 70. The Court, therefore, reiterates that the State has an obligation to investigate the events that constituted violations of the American Convention in the present case, in order to identify those responsible and punish them. 71. As it has in the past, this Court points out that the general obligation that the State undertakes under Article 2 of the American Convention implies the adoption of measures on two fronts, to wit: On the one hand, the suppression of rules and practices of any kind that entail the violation of the guarantees set forth in the Convention. On the other, the issuance of rules and the development of practices leading to the effective observance of said guarantees.56 52 Cf. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 100; The “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 200; and Aloeboetoe et al. Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, paragraph 109. 53 Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 62; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 100; and “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 200. 54 Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 63; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 100; and The “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 201. 55 Cf. The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 99; The “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 2, paragraph 199; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, paragraph 129. 56 Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paragraph 178; Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, paragraph 137; and Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, paragraph 207.