64 guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights of the persons subject to its jurisdiction43. 200. On repeated opportunities, this Court has insisted on the right of the victims’ next of kin to know what happened44, and the identity of the State agents responsible for the facts45. As this Court has indicated, “the investigation of the facts and the punishment of those responsible, [...] is an obligation that corresponds to the State whenever a human rights violation has occurred and this obligation must be complied with seriously and not as a mere formality”46. 201. As the Court stated in the merits stage of this case, impunity signifies “the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violating the rights protected by the American Convention”. The State [...] is obliged to combat this situation by all available legal means, because impunity leads to the chronic repetition of the human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin47. 202. Consequently, the State is obliged to investigate the facts that generated the violations of the American Convention in this case, identify those responsible and punish them. 203. Although, in its judgment on merits, the Court did not decide that Guatemala had violated Article 2 of the Convention – the provision establishing that, among the general obligations, the State must adopt “the legislative or other measures that are necessary to make effective” the rights recognized in the Convention – this is an obligation that the State must fulfill because it has ratified this normative instrument. Accordingly, this Court considers that, in accordance with Article 2 of the Convention, Guatemala must implement in its domestic law, the legislative, administrative and any other kind of measures that are necessary in order to adapt Guatemalan legislation to the provisions of the Convention on the rights to personal liberty, to a fair trial and to judicial guarantees, in order to avoid cases such as this one in the future48. This Court considers that, should it not exist already, a register of detainees should be established, such as the one proposed by the Commission. 43 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 2, para. 129; Blake case, Reparations, supra note 21, para. 121 and third operative paragraph; Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 107 and sixth operative paragraph; Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 90; Garrido and Baigorria case, Reparations, supra note 22, para. 73; Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 2, para. 178 and sixth operative paragraph; Neira Alegría et al. case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 69 and fourth operative paragraph; El Amparo case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 61 and fourth operative paragraph; Caballero Delgado and Santana case. Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22, paras. 58, 69 and fifth operative paragraph; Godínez Cruz case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 184; and Velásquez Rodríguez case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 174. 44 Cf. Aloeboetoe et al. case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 109; Godínez Cruz case, supra note 43, para. 191; and Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 43, para. 181. 45 Cf. Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 2, para. 173. 46 Suárez Rosero case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 79; and El Amparo case, Reparations, supra note 19, para. 61. 47 Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 2, para. 173. Likewise, see Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 170; Blake case, Reparations, supra note 21, para. 64. 48 Cf .Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 2, para. 173.