92 a violation of the aforementioned duty of the State, it is injurious to the victim, to his next of kin and to society as a whole, and it fosters chronic recidivism of those human rights violations.179 186. It is therefore necessary, as the Court has set forth both in this Judgment (supra 127, 128, 133 and 134) and in previous cases,180 for the State to conduct an effective investigation of the facts of this case, to identify those responsible for them, both the direct perpetrators and those who instigated them, as well as possible accessories after the fact, and to punish them administratively and criminally as appropriate. The domestic proceedings involved must address the violations of the right to life and of the right to humane treatment to which this Judgment refers. The next of kin of the victim must have full access and the capacity to act, at all stages and levels of said investigations, in accordance with domestic laws and the provisions of the American Convention. The results of those investigations must be made known to the public, for Honduran society to know the truth. * * * 187. In connection with the above, this Court has repeatedly pointed out that the next of kin have the right to know where the remains of their beloved one are, and it has established that this “constitutes a just expectation that the State must satisfy with all the means available to it.”181 The Court has also stated recently that “delivery of the mortal remains is in itself an act of reparation as it leads to restore the dignity of the victims, to honor the value of their memory to those who were their beloved ones, and to allow them to adequately bury them.”182 For the aforementioned reasons, this Court deems that the State must provide the conditions required to transfer the mortal remains of the victim to the place chosen by his next of kin, at no cost to them. * * * 188. As a consequence of the facts in this case, the Court deems that the State must carry out a public act of acknowledgment of its responsibility in connection with the facts in this case and of amends to the victims.183 The Court also deems that as 179 Cf. Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 53.a); El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 117; and Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 22, paras. 97, 101 and 112. 180 Cf. Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 66; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 118; and Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 22, para. 99. 181 Cf. El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 122; Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 22, para. 113; Bámaca Velásquez Case, Reparations, supra note 153, paras. 76 and 81; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 125, para. 204; Neira Alegría et al. Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 69; and Aloeboetoe et al. Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 11, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 109. 182 Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 77; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 123; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 22, paras. 114 and 115; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 153, paras. 76 and 81. 183 Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 74; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 4, para. 128; Trujillo Oroza Case, Reparations, supra note 22, para. 118; and Bámaca Velásquez Case, Reparations, supra note 153, para. 84.