78 any specific situation, is an important measure of reparation. Therefore, in the instant case, the right to the truth gives rise to an expectation that the State must satisfy to the next of kin of the victims.135 129. In light of the above, in order to repair this aspect of the violations committed, the State must conduct an effective investigation into the facts of the instant case in order to identify, prosecute and punish those who perpetrated and masterminded the extrajudicial execution of Messrs. Carpio Nicolle, Villacorta Fajardo, Ávila Guzmán and Rivas González, and also the serious injuries to Sydney Shaw Díaz. The result of this process must be published, so that Guatemalan society knows the truth. 130. With regard to the State’s obligation to investigate and punish, the Court has established that: [...] all amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and forced disappearance, all of them prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law.136 131. The development of international legislation and case law137 has led to the examination of the so-called “fraudulent res judicata” resulting from a trial in which the rules of due process have not been respected, or when judges have not acted with independence and impartiality. 132. It has been fully demonstrated (supra para. 76(23) to 76(61)) that the trial before the domestic courts in this case was contaminated by such defects. Therefore, the State cannot invoke the judgment delivered in proceedings that did not comply with the standards of the American Convention, in order to exempt it from its obligation to investigate and punish. The basic rule on interpretation contained in Article 29 of this Convention dispels any doubts in this regard. 133. Likewise, the general situation reigning within the justice system, which reveals its inability to maintain its independence and impartiality in the face of pressure exercised on its members in cases with similar characteristics to those of the case of Mr. Carpio Nicolle and the other victims, helps sustain this affirmation.138 135 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 116, para. 230; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 125, para. 261; and Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations (Art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of July 3, 2004. Series C No. 108, para. 81. 136 Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 116, para. 150 and 235; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 125, para. 262; and Case of Molina Theissen, supra note 132, para. 84. 137 Cf., inter alia, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9 (1998), Art. 20; Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, UN Doc. S/Res/955 (1994), Art. 9; and Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, UN Doc. S/Res/827 (1993), Art. 10. 138 Cf., inter alia, Ninth Report to the Secretary General of August 30, 2004, United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala, U.N. Doc. A/59/307; Fourteenth report on human rights of November 10, 2003, United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala, U.N. Doc. A/58/566; and fifth report of the situation of human rights in Guatemala of April 6, 2001, of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.111 Doc. 21 rev.