8 trying, and punishing those responsible for human rights violations” and that “[t]he courts have often subordinated their actions to the executive branch or to military influence, “applying legal provisions or rules that are contrary to due process or failing to apply those they should have.”13 23. That, in this connection, in the Judgments rendered in the Myrna Mack-Chang, Maritza Urrutia, Plan de Sánchez Massacre, Molina-Theissen and Tiu-Tojín cases, all of them involving human rights violations during the armed conflict in Guatemala, the Court pointed out that after 13, 11, 22, 22 and 17 years after the facts, respectively, the obligations of the State to investigate and end impunity remained unfulfilled.14 Moreover, this Court finds that, in all these cases, the State has, to this day, failed to comply with the obligations set forth in the Judgments rendered by this Tribunal regarding the investigation of the facts of the case and the identification, prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators and masterminds of the human rights violations.15 24. That this Court deems it necessary to reiterate what it has consistently stated in its past decisions about the fact that, pursuant to the obligation enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the duty to prevent and fight impunity, which has been defined by the Court as “the overall failure to investigate, search, arrest, prosecute and convict those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.”16 In this regard, the Court has held that the State “has the obligation to combat this situation by all legal means available, as impunity fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations and renders victims and their next of kin completely defenseless.”17 This obligation implies the duty of the States Parties to the Convention to organize the entire government apparatus and, in general, all structures through which public power is exercised, in such a manner as to be capable of legally ensuring the free and full exercise of human rights.18 13 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 134(13). 14 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 272; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 176 ; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 95; Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 79 and Cf. Case of Tiu-Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 72. 15 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 26, 2007, second declaratory paragraph, and Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of November 21, 2007, Considering clauses No. 7, 11, and 12; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of August 5, 2008, third declaratory paragraph; Case of Molina-Theissen v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Court of July 10, 2007, second declaratory paragraph. It should be noted that, in the Case of Tiu-Tojín, the Judgment was rendered on November 26, 2008; therefore, the compliance monitoring process by this Court has not began yet. 16 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 Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 153, and Case of Tiu-Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 69. 17 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 299; Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 137, and Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 16, para. 81. 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166; and Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 110, and Case of Tiu-Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 69.