law that, pursuant to the obligation to guarantee rights recognized in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the duty to avoid and to combat impunity, which the Court has defined as “the total absence of investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution, and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.” 6 Thus, given its importance, the obligation to investigate cannot be executed haphazardly, but must be implemented in keeping with the standards established by international laws and jurisprudence, which characterize investigations as prompt, exhaustive, impartial and independent, 7 and without transferring the responsibility for promoting the investigations to Pedro Huilca Tecse’s next of kin or their representatives. 9. Given the absence of complete, detailed and recent information on the two judicial proceedings that are still underway: specifically the criminal proceedings that are being processed under file No. 04-2010 or 046-2010 against presumed members of the Colina Group, and the criminal complaint against Alberto Fujimori Fujimori, the Court considers it essential that the State present the required information, accompanied by the respective documentation on each of the criminal case files so that the Court may make the corresponding evaluation. In particular, the State must clarify the actual situation of the proceedings and the investigations, and provide information on the lines of investigation that are being followed, in order to evaluate the results. b) Obligation to establish a course or subject on human rights and labor law called the “Cátedra Pedro Huilca” (first operative paragraph, subparagraph (d), of the Judgment) 10. The State advised that the Advisory Council of the Faculty of Law and Political Science of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos had approved the “Cátedra Pedro Huilca Tecse” course on human rights and labor law, and that, in 2009, the Faculty’s Center for University Extension Studies and Social Projection had published the corresponding announcement, “without obtaining the expected response […], owing to access to the University campus, and the lack of opportune administrative support when making the publication”; this “led to the cancellation of the course and its rescheduling for August 2010.” In a subsequent report, the State indicated that the “Cátedra Pedro Huilca Tecse” human rights and labor law course was being offered on a permanent basis in the Faculty of Law and Political Science, and therefore asked the Court to consider that this aspect of the Judgment had been fulfilled. 11. The representatives acknowledged that the State had complied with this measure of reparation. However, they asked the Court to “continue monitoring this measure to avoid the course being eliminated from the university curriculum.” They also asked that the State advise the victim’s next of kin on the steps taken to ensure permanent compliance with this aspect. 6 Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173, and Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of September 7, 2012, footnote 23. 7 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, thirtieth considering paragraph, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 19, 2012, ninth considering paragraph. 5