53 it does not restore, in as much as is possible, the victim’s rights, it can be ascertained that the State has not complied with the obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of those persons within its jurisdiction.188 141. The obligation to investigate, and where applicable, punish the serious violations of human rights have been affirmed by all of the international systems for the protection of human rights. In the universal system, the United Nations Human Rights Committee established in its first cases that States must investigate, in good faith, violations to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.189 Subsequently, it considered in its constant jurisprudence that the criminal investigation and the ensuing prosecution are corrective measures that are necessary for violations of human rights.190 In particular, in cases of enforced disappearance, the Committee concluded that States must establish that which has occurred to the disappeared victims and bring justice to those responsible.191 142. In this same sense, the Committee against Torture of the United Nations also decided that when there is reason to suspect acts of torture have occurred against a person, the States must carry out investigations in an immediate and impartial manner, administered by competent authorities.192 143. The former United Nations Commission on Human Rights recognized that demanding the responsibility of the perpetrators of serious violations of human rights is one of the essential elements for all effective reparations for the victims, and “are a key factor in establishing a justice system that is fair, equitable, and in short, that provides for reconciliation and just stability in all societies, including those in conflict or post-conflict, and which pertain to the transitional processes.”193 188 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 25, para. 176; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 76, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra note 134, para. 288. 189 Cf. H.R.C. Case of Larrosa v. Uruguay. Communication No. 88/1981, Views adopted on 25 March 1983, para. 11.5, and H.R.C. Case of Gilboa v. Uruguay. Communication No. 147/1983, Views adopted on 1 November 1985, para. 7.2. 190 Cf. H.R.C. Case of Sathasivam v. Sri Lanka. Communication No. 1436/2005, Views adopted on 8 July 2008, para. 6.4; H.R.C. Case of Amirov v. Russian Federation. Communication No. 1447/2006, Views adopted on 2 April 2009, para. 11.2, and H.R.C. Case of Felipe and Evelyn Pestaño v. The Philippines. Communication 1619/2007, Views adopted on 23 March 2010, para. 7.2. 191 Cf. H.R.C. Case of Bleier v. Uruguay. Communication 37/1978, Views adopted on 29 March 1982, para. 15; H.R.C. Case of Dermit v. Uruguay. Communication 84/1981, Views adopted on 21 October 1982, para. 11.a, and H.R.C. Case of Quinteros v. Uruguay. Communication 107/1981, Views adopted on 25 March 1983, paras. 15 and 16. 192 Cf. C.A.T., Case of Qani Halimi-Nedzibi Vs. Austria. Communicatión No. 8/1991, Views adopted on November 30, 1993, para. 13.5; C.A.T. Case of Saadia Ali v. Tunisia. Communication No. 291/2006, Views adopted on November 21, 2008, para. 15.7, and C.A.T. Case of Besim Osmani v. Serbia. Communication No. 261/2005, Views adopted on May 8, 2009, para. 10.7. 193 Cf. Commission on Human Rights. Impunity. Order 2005/81, 61st period of sessions, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2005/81, of April 21, 2005. In the same sense, see also Commission on Human Rights. Impunity. Orders: 2004/72, 60th period of sessions, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2004/72, of April 21, 2004; 2003/72, 59th period of sessions, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2003/72, of April 25, 2003; 2002/79, 58th period of sessions, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2002/79, of April 25, 2002; 2001/70, 57th period of sessions, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2001/70, of April 25, 2001; 2000/68, 56th period of sessions, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/RES/2000/68, of April 27, 2000, and 1999/34, 55th period of sessions, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/RES/1999/34, of April 26, 1999.