99. The State argued that it had taken the necessary measures to conduct an investigation that would allow those responsible for what happened to be individualized and punished. It indicated that it had obtained 59 testimonial statements from the survivors regarding what happened in the village of Los Josefinos, and also the testimony of two members of the Army considered to be “possibly responsible” for the events that occurred. It also affirmed that it had conducted an on-site inspection of the clandestine cemetery found in Los Josefinos; the remains had been exhumed in order to identify them and, later, a monument had been erected with the names of the 19 persons found. It argued that the Ministry of Defense had shared vital information for the proceedings as regards the identification of those responsible. The State concluded that it had made every possible effort to ensure that the investigation permitted the victims to obtain justice and asked the Court to declare that it had ensured the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. In its final written arguments, the State indicated that, on September 8 and 9, 2020, it had held a hearing before the Trial Court “A” for high-risk criminal matters, drug-trafficking and crimes against the environment to receive 12 testimonial statements by videoconference as advance evidence. B. Considerations of the Court 100. The Court recalls that the obligation to investigate human rights violations is one of the positive measures that States should take to ensure the rights recognized in the American Convention.167 This obligation is also derived from other inter-American instruments. Moreover, in cases of forced disappearance, this obligations is reinforced by Article I(b), of the ICFDP.168 101. The obligation to investigate the facts in order to establish responsibilities and punishments, as applicable, acquires importance based on the nature of the rights violated and the gravity of the crimes committed.169 The Court has pointed out the State’s duty to investigate attacks against personal integrity,170 and against life,171 including extrajudicial executions and massacres. 172 The Court has also indicated that the State bodies responsible for investigating the forced disappearance of persons – the purpose of which is the determination of their whereabouts and clarification of what happened, the identification of those responsible and their possible punishment – must perform their task diligently and thoroughly.173 102. The Court also considers that compliance with the State obligation to investigate and punish gross human rights violations, such as those in the instant case, constitutes not only an international obligation, but also provides essential elements for a comprehensive policy on the right to the truth, access to justice, effective measures of reparation, and guarantees of non-repetition. Therefore, judicial proceedings to clarify what happened in contexts of systematic human rights violations may Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 166, and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, para. 184. 167 Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 437, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 66. 168 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 166, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala. supra, para. 79. 169 Cf. Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 358, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 79. 170 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 79. 171 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143; Case of Members of the village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, supra, para. 210, and Case of Coc Max et al. (Xamán Massacre) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 79. 172 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 145, and Case of Rochac Hernández et al. v. El Salvador, supra para. 139. 173 32