128 the respective facts.292As the Court has stated, “[w]henever there has been a human rights violation, the State has a duty to investigate the facts and punish those responsible, [...] and this obligation must be complied with seriously and not as a mere formality.”293 274. The Court has reiterated that every person, including the next of kin of the victims of grave violations of human rights, has the right to the truth. Therefore, the next of kin of the victims and society as a whole must be informed of everything that has happened in connection with said violations. This right to the truth has been developed by International Human Rights Law;294 recognized and exercised in a concrete situation, it constitutes an important means of reparation. Therefore, in this case it gives rise to an expectation that the State must satisfy for the next of kin of the victim and Guatemalan society as a whole.295 275. In light of the above, to completely redress this aspect of the violations committed, the State must effectively investigate the facts in the instant case, so as to identify, try, and punish all the direct perpetrators and accessories, and the other persons responsible for the extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang, and for the cover-up of the extra-legal execution and of the other facts in the instant case, aside from the person who has already been punished for these facts. The outcome of the proceeding must be made known to the public, for Guatemalan society to know the truth. 276. The Court notes that the State must ensure that the domestic proceeding to investigate and punish those responsible for the facts in this case attains its due effects and, specifically, it must abstain from resorting to legal concepts such as amnesty, extinguishment, and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility. In this regard, the Court has already pointed out that: [...] all amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution 292 Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 277, para. 100; Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 248, para. 69; and “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 277, para. 100. 293 Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 277, para. 100; Cantoral Benavides Case, Reparations, supra note 248, para. 69; and Cesti Hurtado Case. Reparations, supra note 277, para. 62. 294 Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 277, para. 114; Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 277, para. 76. See, for example, United Nations Human Rights Committee, Quinteros v. Uruguay, Communication No. 107/1981, decision of 21 July 1983; United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Subcommittee on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 49th Session, Informe final revisado acerca de la cuestión de la impunidad de los autores de violaciones de los derechos humanos (derechos civiles y políticos) preparado por L. Joinet, UN General Assembly Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1; United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Subcommittee on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 45th Session, Estudio relativo al derecho de restitución, indemnización y rehabilitación a las víctimas de violaciones flagrantes de los derechos humanos y las libertades fundamentales, final Report submitted by Theo van Boven, Special Rapporteur, E/CN.4/Sub .2/1993/8. 295 Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 277, para. 114; Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 277, para. 76; and Castillo Páez Case, Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 90.