6 14. That the Court considers that the State’s acknowledgement of its liabilities must be translated into prompt and effective compliance with the Court’s orders such as reparation measures. The State must be consistent with the acceptance it has made, so it is imperative that the State shall not –on the basis of such acceptance, of the Court’s Judgment and, above all, its duties of respect and guarantee to which it is bound following a sovereign decision when ratifying the American Convention- repeat any violation facts and does not keep any situations that are incompatible with the Convention, such as impunity. On the contrary, the State must proceed in keeping with its acknowledgement and, consequently, with its international obligations. The State must comply with the Judgment issued against the State, making reparations to the victims according to the damages caused and adopting any necessary measures so that similar events are not repeated. Furthermore, it must be highlighted that the initial content of the reparation that an acknowledgement may mean for the victims and their next of kin disappears as time goes by, if the state authorities remain inactive, without repairing the damages caused.11 15. That the information presented by the parties at this stage of the supervision of the Judgment shows that no progress has been made so far in the investigation of the facts causing the violations and the identification and further punishment of those responsible for such violations. Over three years have elapsed since the merit Judgment and the information provided by the State on this matter lacks specific and detailed elements in relation to the proceedings that have supposedly been carried out for the investigations, and the results obtained. The State has only pointed out, in a general manner, that various proceedings have been carried out, without explaining the importance of such proceedings to comply with the Judgment. In addition, the State has not submitted any evidence either for the Court to assess the effectiveness of such alleged proceedings that the State informs it is carrying out. In view of this lack of clear, accurate and complete information about the measures that the State has adopted or is thinking of adopting to comply with the Judgment, the Court considers that the violations declared in this case continue being unpunished, seventeen years after the facts. 16. That according to the guarantee obligations enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State shall avoid and attack impunity, which has been defined by the Court as “the lack as a whole of investigation, persecution, capture, trial and judgment of those responsible for human rights violations protected by the American Convention.”12 To that end, the Court has advised that the State “has the obligation to attack such situation by any legal means available, since impunity favors the chronic repetition of human rights violations and the total lack of defense of the victims and their next of kin.”13 This obligation implies the duty of the States Parties to the Convention to organize their governmental system and, in general terms, all the structures through which public power is exercised, in 11 Cf. Case of Molina Theissen V. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 16, 2009, considering clause 18. 12 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merit. Judgment of March 8, 1998. C Series No. 37, para. 173; Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of January 27, 2009, considering clause 24, and Case of Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala. Merit, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. C Series No. 190, para. 69. 13 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merit, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. C Series No. 148, para. 299; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 12, considering clause 24, and Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Merit, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. C Series No. 155, para. 81.