held that the State “has the obligation to fight impunity using all the legal means at its disposal, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations and the total defenselessness of victims and their relatives.” This obligation implies the duty of States Parties to the Convention to organize their governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public authority is exercised, so that they are legally capable of ensuring the free and full exercise of human rights. Hence, considering its importance, the obligation to investigate must be discharged in a certain way, so that it is consistent with the standards established by international rules and jurisprudence, which require investigations to be prompt, thorough, impartial and independent.5 10. In this Order, the Court also deemed it “essential for the State to present organized, detailed, complete and updated information on the investigations in process and the steps taken since the delivery of the Judgment up to the present, forwarding copies of the relevant parts of the respective case files. Moreover, the State must ensure the victims’ participation in all the pertinent procedural stages.”6 11. From the information provided by the parties, the Court notes that the Order issued by the Second Superior Court of Justice, on March 8, 2010, requiring the opening of criminal proceedings, has not been notified to all of the accused, which would prevent the continuation of the process. Moreover, the hearing convened in the instant case was postponed at least twice, in July 2010 and June 2011, and the State has not set a new date for this proceeding. In this regard, the Court recalls that the Judgment states that, in compliance with the obligation to investigate and, if applicable, punish those responsible, the State must remove all de facto and de jure obstacles that impede the proper investigation of the facts, and use all means available to expedite that investigation.7 Furthermore, this Court has not received copies of the relevant parts of the case files from the State and, therefore, is unable to ascertain whether or not Panama is indeed ensuring the participation of the victims or their representatives in these proceedings, as it claims. 12. Consequently, the Court considers it necessary that the State submit organized, detailed, complete and updated information on the investigations carried out and the steps taken since the delivery of the Court’s Judgment up to the present, forwarding copies of the relevant parts of the respective case files. Likewise, in its next report Panama must submit information on the observations of the representatives and the Commission in relation to the facts and actions that are under investigation, as well as the legal context thereof (supra considering paragraphs 7 and 8). In addition, the Court reiterates that the State must guarantee the victims’ participation and provide them with the relevant information during all the pertinent procedural stages. 2. Obligation to provide the medical and psychological care required by Graciela De León de Rodriguez, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal, immediately and free of charge, through its specialized health care institutions (Operative Paragraph 15 of the Judgment) 5 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2011, considering para. 21. 6 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 5, considering para. 23. 7 Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 246. 4