86 reasonable time, all the masterminds and perpetrators of the human rights violations committed against the victims in this case.” In addition, they requested that the facts be investigated by impartial, independent and competent institutions, that the investigation be initiated in the ordinary jurisdiction and conducted with due diligence, that the authorities in charge of the investigation be provided with all the means necessary to carry it out promptly, and that the results of the investigations be widely and publicly disseminated so that Peruvian society is aware of them. Similarly, they requested that the State be ordered, “if appropriate, and based on the results of the investigation, to punish any possible operational failings on the part of the public officials in charge of the investigation.” They also requested that the State be ordered to “immediately take the necessary and appropriate steps to identify, prosecute, and punish all officials responsible for obstructing the investigation, within a reasonable time and through a serious, independent, and impartial investigation.” 288. The State indicated that “in its judgment of February 9, 2012, the National Criminal Chamber ordered that certified copies be sent to the Supra Provincial Criminal Prosecutor’s Office, so that, in exercise of its powers and jurisdiction, it may take the necessary actions to establish the alleged responsibility of members of the Peruvian Army, since new evidence and indicia have come to light in the case.” It also expressed its complete willingness to continue with the investigations and eventual prosecution and punishment of those found responsible for the facts of this case, and expressed its intention to carry out promptly and efficiently any procedural actions that may arise. Similarly, the State affirmed that it complied with its obligation to investigate and punish the person who was declared individually criminally responsible, through the judgment issued by the National Criminal Chamber of February 9, 2012, and the final judgment (ejecutoría suprema) of the Supreme Court of Peru on May 29, 2013. The foregoing, without prejudice to any investigations that may be ongoing. Furthermore, in its final arguments it held that the judgments handed down by the domestic courts, in accordance with the Court’s jurisprudence, constitute a form of reparation for the alleged victims and their next of kin and, at the same time, serve to prevent the repetition of similar acts, inasmuch as they also contribute to the reconstruction of the historical memory of the events that occurred during those years, leaving a record of the proven facts. Considerations of the Court 289. This Court appreciates the actions carried out by the State in order to clarify the facts. Specifically, it reiterates that the judgments of February 9, 2012 and May 29, 2013, issued respectively by the National Criminal Chamber and the Transitional Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, are an important and positive landmark in the actions of the State’s Judiciary. Nevertheless, taking into account the conclusions of Chapters IX.I and IX.III of this Judgment, the Court requires the State to carry out the comprehensive, systematic and thorough investigations necessary to determine, prosecute and, if appropriate, punish those responsible for what happened to the fifteen victims indicated in paragraph 194 of this judgment. This obligation must be fulfilled within a reasonable time through the mechanisms existing in domestic law. 290. In accordance with its constant case law, 338 the Court considers that the State must ensure full access to justice and legal standing to the victims or their next of kin at all stages of the investigation and prosecution of those responsible, in accordance with domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention. In addition, the results of the corresponding proceedings must be publicized so that Peruvian society may know the facts that are the subject of this case, as well as those responsible for them. Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 559. 338