20 responsible for the violation. Where the acts of private parties that violate the Convention are not seriously investigated, those parties are aided in a sense by the government, thereby making the 68 State responsible on the international plane. 110. Now, States do not violate their obligation to investigate simply because a person has not been convicted in the case or because of a circumstance in which despite the efforts made, it is impossible to assign guilt for the facts. In order to establish convincingly and credibly that this result is not the product of a mere mechanical execution of certain procedural formalities, but rather that the State is effectively seeking the truth, the State should demonstrate that it has carried out an immediate and 69 exhaustive investigation that is both serious and impartial. 111. The obligation to investigate all incidents that imply a violation of the rights protected under the Convention and to apply the corresponding punishment to those responsible requires the State to investigate the case and bring to trial and punish those responsible, both the material perpetrators of 70 the facts violating human rights and the masterminds behind those facts. Neither have been duly investigated by the Argentine authorities in this case. 112. As a consequence, it is the State’s duty to investigate human rights violations, process those responsible and prevent impunity, which has been defined as “the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the 71 American Convention.” In this sense, the Inter-American Court has indicated that “the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat that situation, since impunity fosters chronic 72 recidivism of human rights violations, and total defenseless of victims and their relatives.” 113. The Court has indicated that, Thus, the State that leaves human rights violations unpunished is also failing to comply with its obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to all persons subject to its 73 jurisdiction. 114. As the Court has established, the relatives of the alleged victims have the right to have what happened to them effectively investigated by State authorities, and the State has the obligation to do so; to bring those allegedly responsible for these illicit acts to trial; where applicable, to apply the 74 corresponding punishment; and to provide reparations for the damages suffered by those relatives. In 68 Inter-American Court, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177. 69 IACHR, Annual Report 1997, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137 (Juan Carlos Abella et al), Argentina, para. 412. On that same subject, also see: IACHR, Annual Report 1997, Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218, (Arges Sequeira Mangas), Nicaragua, para. 96 and 97. 70 For example, the Court has indicated that “the American Convention guarantees everyone access to justice to enforce their rights, and the States Parties have the obligation to prevent, investigate, identify and punish the masterminds and accessories of human rights violations.” Inter-American Court. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C Nº 71, para. 123. Also see Inter-American Court, Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment dated November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 275; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C No. 99, para. 186; Case of Blake, Reparations, Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, para. 65. 71 Inter-American Court, Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 148; Inter-American Court, Case of the 19 Merchants. Judgment dated July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 175; Inter-American Court, Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights), Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, paragraph 64. 72 Inter-American Court, Case of Loayza Tamayo, Reparations and Costs, November 27,1998, Series C, No. 42, para. 169 to 170. 73 Inter-American Court, Case of Trujillo Oroza. Reparations and Costs February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, paragraph 101. 74 Cf. Case of the 19 Merchants, supra footnote 15, para. 187; Case of Las Palmeras, supra footnote 25, para. 65; and Case of Durand y Ugarte, supra footnote 25, para. 130.