2 substantially from the points that were being debated, and “full reparation” was offered. These components, acknowledgment of international responsibility, basic agreement with the facts of the application and the offer to provide full reparation, lead the Court not to object to the agreement on the facts reached by the parties. 3. Article 1 of the American Convention sets forth the primary obligation of the States Party to respect the rights and liberties recognized therein, and to ensure their free and full exercise. This obligation to guarantee includes the duty to investigate and to punish those responsible, if there has been a violation of a protected right. For this, the victim and/or his next of kin have the protection granted by effective legal recourse (Article 25 of the aforementioned Convention). Numerous rulings of the Court have affirmed the aforementioned statement.1 Investigation of the facts satisfies the right that every victim has to the truth. Punishment of those guilty of what happened not only affirms and communicates to society the effectiveness of the rule that was breached, according to the usual ideas of positive general prevention, but also has an unequivocal meaning as reparation for the victim and/or his next of kin. In point of fact, violation of any human right involves an affront to the dignity and respect owed to every human being as such; therefore, punishment of whoever committed the act reestablishes the dignity and esteem of the victim with respect to him or herself and the community. To some extent, it repairs the damage suffered. 4. Impunity not only fosters recidivism of the same facts,2 but also hinders the reparative effect, for the victim, of criminal punishment. Investigation, ascertaining the truth, punishment of the guilty one, access to justice, effective legal remedy, all these are components that define the basic obligations of every State in face of the violation of a human right, to ensure its reparation and as a guarantee of non-recidivism. I have made the foregoing remarks because in this case, to date, the right of the next of kin of Walter Bulacio to effective legal protection -through 1 Among many others, Juan Humberto Sánchez Case. June 7, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 99, para. 142; Bámaca Velásquez Case. November 25, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 70, para. 210; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case. December 8, 1995 Judgment. Series C No. 22, paras. 55 and 56; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case. March 15, 1989 Judgment. Series C No. 6, para. 161; Godínez Cruz Case. January 20, 1989 Judgment. Series C No. 5, paras. 174 to 176; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case. July 29, 1988 Judgment. Series C No. 4, paras. 165 to 167. 2 As the Court has stated, “the overall lack of investigation, pursuit, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of rights protected under the American Convention, as the State has the obligation to combat said situation by all legal means within its power, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations and total defenselessness of the victims and of their next of kin” (Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 1, paras. 143 and 185; Las Palmeras Case. Reparations (Art. 63 (1) American Convention on Human Rights). November 26, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 96, para. 53.a); Caracazo Case. Reparations (Art. 63 (1) American Convention on Human Rights). August 29, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 95, para. 117; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations (Art. 63 (1) American Convention on Human Rights). February 27, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 92, paras. 97, 101 and 112; Las Palmeras Case. December 6, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 90, para. 56; Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparaciones (Art. 63 (1) American Convention on Human Rights). February 22, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 91, para. 64; Bámaca Velásquez Case. November 25, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 70, para. 211; and “White Van” Case (Paniagua Morales et al.). March 8, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 37, para. 173).