Landaeta Galindo and Leydis Rossimar Landaeta Galindo and, as victims of the violations declared in this Judgment, they will be considered the beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate the events that resulted in the violations and to identify, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those responsible 295. The Commission recommended that the State conduct a complete, impartial, effective and timely investigation of the human rights violations that it had declared, in order to establish the intellectual and material responsibility for the facts described and to impose the corresponding punishment. It also recommended the State to order the appropriate administrative, disciplinary or criminal measures to address the acts and omissions of the State officials that had contributed to the denial of justice and the impunity surrounding the facts of the case. 296. The representatives asked that the State conduct, within a reasonable time, a complete, impartial and effective investigation, in order to identify, prosecute and punish all the perpetrators and masterminds of the violations of the victims’ human rights with penalties proportionate to the gravity of the acts committed against the Landaeta Mejías brothers. The State did not refer to this measure of reparation. 297. Regarding the arbitrary deprivation of the lives of the Landaeta Mejías brothers, the Court has established in this Judgment that the State was responsible for violating the right to life established in Article 4 of the American Convention, with regard to Igmar Landaeta, as well as the rights established in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 of the same instrument (supra paras. 147 and 204) with regard to Eduardo Landaeta. In addition, in both cases, the Court concluded that the State had failed to conduct a complete and thorough investigation, within a reasonable time, following joint lines of investigation in relation to the death of the brothers, in order to clarify the events and punish those responsible and, therefore, that the State was responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention (supra paras. 250 and 275). 298. Furthermore, the Court observed that, in the case of Igmar Landaeta, during the public hearing in this case the State agents declared that “the Appellate Court should have delivered a conviction or an acquittal, but not the dismissal of the case, which has given rise, for both the victim and the State, to the appeal for annulment or for constitutional protection (amparo) owing to the failure to notify the procedural parties (supra para. 211). In addition, prosecutor Yelitza Acacio Carmona, proposed by the State, testified before the Court that “with regard to the investigation conducted owing to the ruling of the Appellate Court, to date there is no record of this notification to the representative of the Public Prosecution Service, which gives rise to the possibility and provides the grounds for an additional appeal to return to the stage of the appeal for annulment for a final ruling, either confirming or rejecting the last judgment delivered.” 299. Owing to the State’s indication of the possibility of filing another appeal in the proceedings in the case of Igmar Landaeta, and taking into account the errors and omissions in the investigation and in the proceedings, which resulted in the violations declared in this Judgment (supra paras. 250 and 275), the Court establishes that the State should re-open, ex officio, the investigation in order to clarify the facts and, as appropriate, determine the responsibilities for the arbitrary deprivation of the life of Igmar Landaeta, within a reasonable time. 300. In the case of Eduardo Landaeta, the Court establishes that the State must continue, and conclude within a reasonable time, the investigation into the said facts in its ordinary jurisdiction, pursuant to domestic law and the corresponding international 83