in this Judgment, they will be considered beneficiaries of the reparations ordered by the Court. B. Obligation to investigate 107. The Commission asked the Court to “order the measures necessary for an exhaustive and diligent criminal and disciplinary investigation within a reasonable period of time into all the responsibilities stemming from the violations found in the Report on the Merits [...].” 108. The representatives agreed with the Commission, and specifically asked that: a) “the judicial proceedings entitled 'ACOSTA MARTINEZ, José Delfín death for uncertain causes' (File No. 22,190/1996) in the hands of the National Criminal and Correctional Court No. 10, Secretariat No. 130, as well as related and incidental cases that may be substantiated” be investigated; b) that “the police personnel involved in the incident” be investigated, along with “the judicial system officials;” c) that in order to “guarantee impartiality in its processing, the case be filed in a court other than the one involved in the original investigation and that a special prosecutor be placed in charge of the investigation;” and d) “that the conduct of the police officers involved in the facts be investigated, with applicable administrative sanctions applied.” 109. The State indicated that the Court should take into account that, as a result of the Commission's report, on March 14, 2019, the court ordered the reopening of judicial case No. 22,190 investigating the illegal detention and death José Delfín Acosta Martínez. It underscored that the case is being investigated by the Office of the Special Prosecutor for Institutional Violence (PROCUVIN) of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which had requested a number of elements of evidence and, as of submission of the final arguments, was about to file charges. It added that none of the judges involved in the case previously remained in their positions. 110. The Court notes that the State has taken actions aimed at reopening the judicial case investigating the illegal detention and death of José Delfín Acosta Martínez and that it is being handled by PROCUVIN, a prosecutor's office specializing in institutional violence. It therefore establishes that, in the framework of case file 22,190/1996, the State shall continue the investigations necessary to identify and, where appropriate, punish all those responsible for what happened to Mr. Acosta Martínez, as well as establish the truth regarding it, being careful to take the context of police violence due to racism and discrimination into consideration. In particular, the State shall ensure that the investigation is carried out in consideration of the context of police violence, racism and discrimination, avoiding omissions in the collection of evidence and following up on the different lines of investigation, without focusing exclusively on the police version of the facts. 111. Pursuant to its settled case law,158 the Court finds that the State must ensure full access and capacity to act to the victims’ next of kin at all stages of the investigation and prosecution of those responsible, in keeping with domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention. On this point, the Court takes note of the reform of the Criminal Procedure Code through Law No. 27,372 of 2017, which expressly recognizes the rights of Cf. Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118; Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 165, and Case of Montesinos Mejia v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2020. Series C No. 398, para. 230. 158 33