25 kind of violence; otherwise, the ability of groups to organize themselves to protect their interests could be limited.20 78. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that, in this case, the legitimate exercise that Pedro Huilca Tecse made of the right to freedom of association, (in trade union matters), resulted in a lethal reprisal, which, in turn, constituted a violation of Article 16 of the American Convention. The Court also considers that the execution of Pedro Huilca Tecse had an intimidating effect on the workers of the Peruvian trade union movement and thereby reduced the freedom of a specific group to exercise this right. 79. Consequently, in accordance with the State’s acquiescence, the Court considers that the facts referred to in paragraph 60 of the judgment have been established and, as the State also acknowledged, that it incurred international responsibility for violation of the rights embodied in Articles 4(1) (Right to Life) and 16 (Freedom of Association) of the American Convention, and non-compliance with the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of Pedro Huilca Tecse. * * * 80. Also, from the terms of the acquiescence it is clear that, in the domestic proceedings in this case, there was continued obstruction, and also a lack of diligence in the investigations conducted by the State, thus ensuring the impunity of the masterminds and perpetrators concerning the facts that occurred on December 18, 1992 (supra paras. 60(22), 60(25), 60(35) and 60(45)). 81. In this regard, although domestic judicial proceedings were instituted to investigate what happened to Pedro Huilca Tecse, they was annulled and the investigation and judicial decision are still pending. In addition to the facts established in this case, the State has conducted different investigations through the Truth Commission and the national Congress, which could contribute to clarifying the facts in this case. However, up until the delivery of this judgment, more than 12 years after the facts occurred, the case has not been resolved. 82. This has constituted a situation of serious impunity. In this regard, the Court understands that impunity means: The overall lack of investigation, tracing, capture, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention, and that the State is obliged to combat this situation by all available legal means. Impunity promotes the chronic repetition of the human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin.21 83. In view of the foregoing, the Court also considers that, according to the State’s acquiescence and the facts established in this case (supra para. 60), Peru is responsible for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) 20 21 Cf. Eur. Court H.R. Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v Austria, supra note 17, para. 32. Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 7, para. 148; Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C. 103, para. 126; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 4, paras. 156 and 210.