32 among other things, those responsible for the human rights violations may be tried and reparations obtained for the damages suffered. As this Court has said, Article 25 “is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society in the terms of the Convention” (Castillo Páez Case, supra 70, paras. 82 and 83; Suárez Rosero Case, supra 39, para. 65; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra 40, para. 164, and Loayza Tamayo Case, Reparations, supra 38, para.169). That article is closely linked to Article 8(1) of the American Convention which upholds every person’s right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal for the determination of his rights of any nature. 107. Consequently, the State has a duty to investigate the human rights violations and prosecute those responsible and thus avoid impunity. The Court has defined impunity as “the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention” and has held that […] the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat that situation, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations, and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives (Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra 40, para. 173). 108. Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion that, in principle, the Peruvian legislation typifying the crime of forced disappearance to be laudable. XIII COSTS AND EXPENSES 109. Invoking Article 23 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the victim’s next of kin requested that they be awarded approximately US$4,000.00 (four thousand United States dollars) to cover their room-and-board and related expenses during the reparations stage. At the public hearing, the representatives of the victim’s next of kin requested payment of legal fees since, unless such fees were recognized, the “Inter-American system will only be available to those who have economic means.” The amount being claimed was not specified in that brief. 110. The State objected to the claims seeking reimbursement of the family’s hotel expenses at the time of the public hearing, since the victim’s next of kin “are being represented in these proceedings and their presence at the seat of the Court is pointless.” It further argued that under Article 45 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the party requesting the production of evidence shall defray the cost thereof. * * * 111. As for the expenses for attending the public hearing, the Court considers that any finding on this claim would be pointless, inasmuch as the victim’s next of kin were not present for the hearing. 112. It is up to the Court to make a prudent assessment of the specific scope of the costs to which the condemnatory judgment refers, taking into account the verification of those costs, the circumstances of the specific case, to which end the Court shall determine, on the basis of reason and equity, a reasonable sum for the costs incurred by the victim or his representatives and attorneys in proceedings with Peru (cf. Garrido and Baigorria Case, Reparations, supra 42, para. 82).