68 188. The obligation to investigate and the corresponding right of the alleged victims or the next of kin is not only evident from the conventional [treaty-based] norms of international law that are binding for the State Parties, but also arise from domestic law regarding the obligation to investigate ex officio certain unlawful conduct, as well as from the norms that permit the victims or their next of kin to denounce or file complaints, evidence or petitions, or take any other measure in order to play a procedural role in the criminal investigation so as to establish the truth of the facts. 223 189. The mentioned international obligation to prosecute, and if criminal responsibility is determined, punish the perpetrators of the human rights violations, is encompassed in the obligation to respect rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention and implies the right of the States Parties to organize all of the governmental apparatus, and in general, all of the structures through which the exercise of public power is expressed, in a way such that they are capable of legally guaranteeing the free and full exercise of human rights. 224 190. As part of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate, and punish all violations of the rights recognized in the Convention, and seek, in addition, the reestablishment, if possible, of the violated right and, where necessary, repair the damage caused by the violation of human rights. 225 191. If the State’s apparatus functions in a way that assures the matter remains with impunity, and it does not restore, in as much as is possible, the victim’s rights, it can be ascertained that the State has not complied with the obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of those persons within its jurisdiction. 226 192. The satisfaction of the collective dimension of the right to truth requires the procedural determination of the most complete historical record possible. This determination must include a description of the patterns of joint action and should identify all those who participated in various ways in the violations and their corresponding responsibilities. 227                                                          223 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 192, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 139. 224 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 20, para. 166; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 65; Case of The Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 127, para. 234, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 140. 225 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 20, para. 166; Case of Garibaldi V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 112, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 140. 226 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 20, para. 176; Case of González et al.s (“Campo Algodonero”), supra note 79, para. 288, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 140. 227 Cf. Case of of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 195; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 158, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 63, para. 234.