45 supported by the allegations of the representatives and also by the evidence presented by the State, advising that, on May 8, 1995, a prosecutor’s office ordered that the case file be forwarded to the acting prosecutor because of “indications of a crime against the property (theft) of the Certificate of Judicial Deposit of the National Bank No. […], dated April 18, 1989, for a total of US$7,500.00.” The loss of this sum of money under the State’s custody has a direct causal connection to the events of this case and, consequently, must be restituted. Therefore, if this sum of money has not been already returned, the Court orders that it should be restituted to Pelagia Mélida Contreras-Montoya de Cantoral, who may dispose of it as she sees fit. D) Other forms of reparation (Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition) 188. In this section, the Court will determine those measures of satisfaction that seek to repair non pecuniary damage, which does not have a pecuniary scope, and will also order measures of a public scope or repercussion. i) Obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations in this case, and identify, prosecute and punish those responsible 189. In this judgment, the Court has established that, for more than 18 years, the next of kin of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz have not obtained a judicial determination of the facts or of those responsible, because the investigation conducted at the domestic level has not constituted an effective recourse to guarantee true access to justice for the next of kin of the victims (supra para. 135). 190. The Court recalls that, when complying with its obligation to investigate and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the facts, the State must remove all the de facto and de jure obstacles, that impede the proper investigation of the events, and use all available means to expedite the investigation and the respective proceedings in order to avoid a repetition of such serious acts as those examined in the instant case. The State may not invoke any law or provision of domestic law to exempt itself from the obligation to investigate and, if applicable, punish those responsible for the acts against Saúl CantoralHuamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz. In particular, the Court recalls that the State may not apply amnesty laws, or provisions relating to prescription, or other provisions that exclude responsibility, which prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible. 191. In addition, bearing in mind the Court’s case law,129 the State must ensure that the next of kin of the victims have full access and capacity to act at all stages and in all instances of these investigations and proceedings, pursuant to domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention. The result of the proceedings must be publicized so that Peruvian society may know the judicial determination of the facts and those responsible in this case.130 ii) Publication of the Judgment 129 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 228; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 72, para. 139; and Case of Baldeón-García v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 199. 130 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 8, para. 228; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 441; and Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 13, para. 157.