87 in the investigation, including the victims or their representatives, witnesses and justice operators, have the necessary guarantees of security. 338 286. In accordance with its consistent case law, 339 the Court considers that the State must ensure full access and capacity to act for the victims or their next of kin at all stages of the investigation and trial of those responsible, in conformity with domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention. In addition, the results of the corresponding proceedings must be publicly disclosed so that Guatemalan society is aware of the facts of this case, as well as those responsible. 287. As it has done in other cases, 340 the Court appreciates the publication of the CEH report, Guatemala: Memoria del Silencio (Guatemala: Memory of Silence) which covers part of the events that occurred in this case, as an effort that has contributed to the search for and determination of the truth of a historical period of Guatemala. Nevertheless, the Court considers it pertinent to emphasize that the elements of “historical truth” contained in that report do not complete or replace the State’s obligation to establish the truth of what happened and ensure the judicial determination of individual or State responsibilities through the relevant proceedings. 288. The investigation of the facts is a legal obligation that corresponds to the State, so that each procedural measure that it takes must reflect the commitment assumed by Guatemala in order to eradicate the impunity for the facts, an obligation of guarantee that arises from Article 1(1) of the American Convention. To comply with his obligation, the State must combat impunity by all legal means available, because impunity fosters “the chronic repetition of human rights violations and the complete defenselessness of the victims and their families.” 341 The State must also “organize the entire government apparatus and, in general, all the structures through which the exercise of public power is expressed so that they are able to legally ensure the free and full exercise of human rights.” 342 289. Furthermore, this Court has established in its case law that when a State is a party to international treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women, the said treaties are binding for all their organs, including the judiciary, whose members must ensure that the effects of the provisions of these treaties are not impaired by the application of norms or interpretations contrary to their object and purpose. The judges and organs related to the administration of justice at all levels are obliged to exercise ex officio a “control of conventionality” between domestic law and the human rights treaties to which the State is a Party, evidently within the framework of their respective jurisdictions and the corresponding procedural regulations. In this task, the judges and organs related to the administration of justice, such as the Public Prosecution Service, must take into account not only the American Convention and other inter-American instruments, but also the interpretation of them made by the Inter-American Court. 343 C.2. Determination of the whereabouts of the disappeared victims, and recovery and Cf. 12 Guatemalan Cases. Order on Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, considering paragraph 167; Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 233; Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 257; Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, para. 327; Case of García and Family Members v. Guatemala, para. 196, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, para. 252. 339 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118, and Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru, para. 269. 340 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, para. 232, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 259. 341 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 261. 342 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 166, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 261. 343 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, para. 124, and Case of Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 262. 338