35 c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 74. This Court has decided to accept the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility regarding the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. Said acknowledgment only covers those violations committed “from the date the event was committed up to the time of transition [towards] democracy,” (supra paras. 30 and 38). Thus, as represented by Peru, “from November, 2000 on that the conditions of freedom and institutional independence of the were given so that the jurisdictional authorities could act free from pressure and interference by the political powers.” Therefore, after said date no violation of the aforementioned Articles of the American Convention would have been committed in the instant case (supra para. 30). 75. The Commission alleged, however, that the investigation into Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino’s forced disappearance has been characterized by “a lack of action by the Office of the Prosecutor that is still unexplained,” inasmuch as over thirteen years after the victim's forced disappearance "the only steps taken by [the State] have been to receive the statements by Mr. Gómez-Palomino’s mother, commonlaw wife, cousin and neighbor ──only in mid-2000 and early 2003─ in addition to the collaborator's [371-MCS-] statement and the performance of an unsuccessful excavation operation” (supra para. 69). Both the Commission and the representatives pointed out that, to this day, the criminal investigation is still at the preliminary stage; therefore, Mr. Gómez-Palomino’s forced disappearance continues to be marked by impunity. 76. On several occasions, the Court has indicated that the State has a duty to prevent and combat impunity and has described the characteristics of such duty,55 in relation to human rights violations such as those involving the forced disappearance of persons. In this regard, the Court has pointed out that: […]the State is obliged to combat such a situation by all available legal means, as impunity fosters the chronic repetition of human rights violations and renders victims and their next of kin completely defenseless.56 77. In addition, the Inter-American Court has reaffirmed that the duty to investigate must be undertaken “in a serious manner rather than as a mere formality destined beforehand to be fruitless.”57 The investigation conducted by the State in pursuance of this obligation "[m]ust have an objective and be assumed by [the State] as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that 55 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 237; Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 3, para. 203; and Case of Huilca-Tecse, supra note 3, para. 82. 56 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 237; Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 3, para. 203; and Case of Huilca-Tecse, supra note 3, para. 82. 57 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 223; Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 3, para. 146; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz sisters, supra note 51, para. 61.