6 the Court has held that the State “has the obligation to fight impunity by using all the legal means at its disposal, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives7.” This obligation implies the duty of States Parties to the Convention to organize the governmental apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which public power is exercised, so that they are capable of juridically ensuring the free and full enjoyment of human rights8. Hence, considering its relevance, the obligation to investigate must be discharged in a certain way, so as to be in line with the standards established by international rules and the case-law that set forth it should be a prompt, thorough, impartial and independent investigation9. 22. Even though the State has furnished information regarding a series of procedural steps taken and other actions in process to investigate into the facts that resulted from the violations determined in the Judgment and, in this way, identify and, if applicable, punish the responsible, there is no evidence in the case file that allows this Tribunal to assess the status of compliance with this aspect. Moreover, the State refers to decisions already assessed by the Tribunal upon the delivery of the Judgment, like the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of March 2, 2004, according to which the criminal action in the case of the disappearance of Mr. Heliodoro Portugal is nonextinguishable. Therefore, the Court requires sufficient information to be able to determine the due diligence in the compliance with the order to investigate issued by the Court. 23. Based on the foregoing, it is essential for the State to present organized, detailed, complete and updated information of the investigations in process and the steps taken since the delivery of the Judgment up to the present, forwarding copies of the relevant parts to the respective case files. Moreover, the State must ensure the participation of the victims in all the pertinent procedural stages, without making them responsible of expediting the investigation. * * * 24. As to the duty to provide the medical and psychological care required by Graciela De León de Rodriguez, Patria Portugal and Franklin Portugal, immediately and free of charge, through its specialized health care institutions (operative paragraph fifteen of the Judgment), the State indicated that “the medical and psychological care for the Portugal family has always been available to them”. In this way, the State “informe[d] that the Ministry of Health follows specific instructions to provide medical care to the Portugal family in compliance with the Judgment" but that "the Portugal family has not requested [said] benefit [...], since they have never made new appointments.” Hence, the State pointed out that “by means of note of February 9, 2009,” “it formally repeated to Mrs. Patria Portugal […] that instructions have been given and the medical and psychological treatment that the three next-of-kin would receive, have been coordinated with Santo Tomas Hospital”. In addition, the State mentioned Ivcher Bronstein V. Peru, Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of November 24, 2009; Considering clause twelve. 7 See Case of the "White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al), supra note 6, para. 173; Case of El Amparo, supra note 2, considering clause eighteen; and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 6, considering clause twelve. 8 See Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1998. Series C No. 4, para. 166; Case of El Amparo, supra note 2, considering clause eighteen; and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 6, considering clause twelve. 9 See Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, considering clause thirty; Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 6, considering clause twelve; and case of Montero Aranguren et al (Retén de Catia) V. Venezuela. Monitoring Compliance with the Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, of November 17, 2009; Considering clause eighteen.