66 232. The Court recalls that, in compliance with its obligation to investigate and, if applicable, to punish those responsible for the facts sub judice, the State must remove all the obstacles, de facto and de jure, that prevent adequate investigation into the facts, and use all available means to expedite that investigation and the respective proceedings in order to avoid a recurrence of facts as grave as those of this case. 233. At the same time, taking into account the Court’s case law,164 the State must ensure that the next of kin of the victims have full access and capacity to act at all stages and in all instances of these investigations and proceedings so that they may submit pleas and motions, receive information, offer evidence, formulate arguments and, in brief, assert their interests. Domestic law must organize the respective proceedings in accordance with the American Convention and this judgment. The purpose of this participation must be access to justice, knowledge of the truth about what happened, and obtaining fair reparation. In addition, the result of the proceedings must be publicized so that Colombian society is informed of the judicial determination of the facts and of those responsible in the instant case.165 234. Also, with regard to the publication indicated in paragraph 227, as it has in other cases,166 the Court finds it pertinent to order that this should be made once in the official gazette and once in another national newspaper with widespread circulation, and should comprise paragraphs 2 to 4, 6, 29, 47, 70 to 78, 80 to 97, 104 to 107, 109, 110, 115, 122, 125 to 128, 130, 132, 140 to 144, 147, 160, 161, 165 to 170, 176 to 180, 184, 190, 191, 196, 197 and 200 of this judgment, without the corresponding footnotes, but with the titles of the respective chapters, and also the operative paragraphs. 235. The Court recognizes and assesses positively as a measure of satisfaction that the State has published Report on merits No. 75/06 issued by the Inter-American Commission in the instant case, as well as the settlement agreement and the official decision approving the settlement in Bulletin No. 16 of the Council of State.167 236. Regarding the actions to recover the historical memory of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo indicated in paragraphs 227, the Court assesses and appreciates the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State in its brief answering the application and during the public hearing in the instant case held on February 6 and 7, 2008, (supra paras. 20 to 25). 237. The representatives asked that the Court order the State “to establish a permanent course on human rights in the law schools in the name of [Jesús María Valle Jaramillo],” in order to “recover [his] memory.” In this regard, as it has on other occasions,168 the Court considers it pertinent to urge the State to make every effort to establish a course on human 164 Cf. El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 176, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 247. 165 Cf. Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2002. Series C No. 96, para. 67; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 247, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 62, para. 191. 166 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 15, para. 79; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 248, and Case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note 153, para. 235. 167 Bulletin No. 16 of the Council of State of December 15, 2007 (File of attachments to the brief with final arguments of the State, attachment 6, folio 3109). 168 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 55, para. 113. Mutatis mutandis, Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, paras. 178 and 179.