78 142. Based on Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the Court deems that the State is under the obligation to respect the rights and liberties recognized therein154 and to organize public authority in such a way as to ensure to all persons under its jurisdiction the free and full exercise of human rights.155 The above obligation applies independently of whether those responsible for violation of said rights are agents of public authority, private individuals, or groups of individuals,156 as according to the rules of International Human Rights Law, action or omission by any public authority is an act attributable to the State, one that involves its responsibility under the terms set forth in that Convention.157 143. The Court has established that in Honduras there was and is a state of impunity regarding the facts of the instant case (supra 135), as the State has the obligation to prevent and investigate what happened.158. It is the understanding of the Court that impunity is: the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention, in view of the fact 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 right violations, and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives.159 In the sub judice case, it should be recalled that more than ten years have passed without all those allegedly responsible being tried, as has been proven. 144. This Court has clearly stated that the obligation to investigate must be fulfilled: in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the Government.160 154 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 210; Caballero Delgado Judgment of December 8, 1995. Series C No. 22, paras. 55 and 56; Fairén Garbi and supra note 151, para. 161; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 33, para. 165. 155 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 210; Caballero Delgado supra note 154, paras. 55 and 56; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 33, paras. 175 and Rodríguez Case, supra note 33, paras. 166 and 167. and Santana Case. Solís Corrales Case, and Santana Case, 176; and Velásquez 156 Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 210; and Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 109, para. 174. 157 Cf. “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 3, para. 163; Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 210; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 3, para. 154; and Baena Ricardo et al. Case, supra note 147, para. 178. 158 The meaning of this concept is that set forth in case law, Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 211; Castillo Páez Case. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 90; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, supra note 154, para. 58; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 33, paras. 174-177. 159 Bámaca Velásquez Case, Reparations, supra note 153, para. 64; Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 211; and Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 109, para. 173. 160 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 25, para. 212; “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 103, para. 226; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 33, para. 188; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 33, para. 177.