115 the victims of the armed conflict will in fact be established. Nevertheless, the State expressed that it would be convenient for the Court to encourage and request “support from the international community to strengthen […] such programs”. 72. At the public hearing, the State expressed that it is working on five human rights policies, and that within this framework “an investigation will continue” in the instant case. * * * Considerations of the Court 73. Pursuant to operative paragraph eight of the November 25, 2000 judgment on the merits, Guatemala must conduct “an investigation to determine the persons responsible for the human rights violations referred to in [that] Judgment, and also to publicly disseminate the results of such investigation and punish those responsible”.76 In this manner, the reparations that must be made by the State necessarily include effectively investigating the facts, punishing all those responsible, and disseminating the results of the investigation. 74. This Court has referred once and again to the right of the relatives of the victims to know what happened77 and to know which State agents were responsible for the respective facts.78 “[I]nvestigation of the facts and punishment of those responsible, […] is an obligation of the State when there has been a human rights violation and this obligation must be fulfilled seriously, and not as a mere formality”.79 Furthermore, this Court has indicated that the State “has the obligation to combat [impunity] through all legal means at its disposal because [it] fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations and total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin”.80 A State that does not punish human rights violations would, further, not be complying with its duty to guarantee free and full exercise of the rights of persons under its jurisdiction.81 75. This Court also established, in its judgment on the merits, that due to the characteristics of this case, the right to the truth was subsumed in the right of the victim or his next of kin to obtain clarification of the facts relating to the violations and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent State organs, through the 76 Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 6, operative paragraph 8. 77 See Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 100; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 200; and Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 40, para. 109. 78 See Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 69; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 5, para. 200. 79 See Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 69; Cesti Hurtado Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 62; Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 100; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 200. 80 See Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 69; Cesti Hurtado Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 63; Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 100; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 201. 81 See Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 69; Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 99; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 199; and Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 6, para. 129.