delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation.93 The investigation must be conducted using all available legal means in order to discover the truth.94 108. Furthermore, the Court has indicated that, under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the obligation to ensure the rights recognized in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention entails the State’s obligation to investigate possible acts or torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,95 which obliges the State “to take […] effective measures to prevent and punish […] torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”96 109. In this case, three complaints were filed before the Haitian authorities (supra paras. 44 to 46), in which they were informed of the illegal detention, the acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment inflicted on Mr. Fleury during his detention at the Bon Repos Police Station. However, there is no evidence that any investigation was opened as a result of these complaints, either by disciplinary proceedings before the HNP, or by the respective criminal proceedings. The only known investigative measure with regard to the facts of June 2002 was an identification procedure where Mr. Fleury identified the agents who assaulted him. The identification took place on February 22, 2003, during a meeting with an inspector in the offices of the HNP General Inspectorate (supra para. 47). Moreover, the Inspector of the Police himself told Mr. Fleury that no investigation would be opened against the members of the police for the facts reported (supra para. 47). In the nine years that have passed since the facts occurred, no other investigative measures have been reported. 110. In other words, the administrative or judicial authorities failed to conduct a prompt, exhaustive, impartial, independent investigation of the facts within a reasonable time, which has evidently made it impossible to determine, individualize, and prosecute those responsible for the facts, despite having clear evidence to do this, including the testimony of Mr. Fleury himself. 111. In addition, the Court has observed the context of the facts of this case: the investigations into abuses committed by officials of the Haitian security forces were not effective and rarely did the complaints filed by alleged victims lead to the prosecution and punishment of those responsible for the facts, and this contributed to and encouraged impunity (supra para. 29). 112. Thus, those responsible for the acts of torture and the cruel and degrading treatment inflicted upon Mr. Fleury continue to benefit from complete impunity. Furthermore, there are individuals who were identified as perpetrators of those acts who continue working as HNP officials (supra para. 49). 93 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 17, paras. 219 and 223, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 90, para. 128. Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 17, para. 222, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. supra note 90, para. 128. 94 95 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 78, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 45, para. 192. Similarly, see Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname, supra note 81, para. 92. 96 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 45, para. 126. 30