C. Other measures of reparation requested C.1 Obligation to investigate 276. In its Report, the Commission recommended that the State “carry out and complete an impartial, thorough and effective investigation as soon as possible, in order to establish criminal and other responsibilities for the violations established.” For their part, the representatives, without further analysis, made the same request. 277. In this regard, the State argued that “all the steps taken were aimed at identifying the person or persons responsible for the death of the presumed victim; therefore the State complied with the requirements to conduct an effective investigation.” It also held that the investigation was carried out in a thorough, timely, prompt, serious and impartial manner from the moment of the processing of the scene of the facts, in accordance with the actions cited in the Report [on the Merits]” and that “the investigation in question was conducted in accordance with the State’s resources and in the measure of the State´s possibilities.” 278. The Court has considered that any human rights violation involves a level of severity by its own nature, because it implies a breach of certain State obligations to respect and guarantee the rights and freedoms of people. However, this should not be confused with what the Court throughout its jurisprudence has deemed to be “serious violations of human rights,” which have their own connotation and consequences. 369 Furthermore, it is not appropriate to expect that the Court, in any case submitted to it concerning human rights violations, should automatically order the State to investigate, and where appropriate, prosecute and punish those responsible for specific facts. In each case, the Court must assess the particular circumstances and the facts, the scope of the State’s responsibility and the effects that such an order by the Court would have at the domestic level, particularly if this implies reopening domestic proceedings in which final decisions or res judicata rulings have already been reached and there is no evidence or indication that these outcomes are the result of deception, fraud or of a desire to perpetuate a situation of impunity. 279. In the instant case, the Court points out that the representatives and the Commission did not provide grounds for asking the Court to order the State to conduct an “impartial, complete and effective investigation” of the facts “in order to establish criminal responsibilities.” In particular, they did not specify that a situation of impunity existed regarding certain facts or behavior of a possible criminal nature; they did not indicate the procedural means or measures that the State would supposedly need to adopt in order to eventually comply with an order in that regard; nor did they specify the scope of the “full and effective” investigation that, in their opinion, the State should carry out. 280. Certainly, in this case, there was no inquiry to determine whether Mrs. Chinchilla’s death could have been caused by possible negligence on the part of the administrative authorities with respect to her prison conditions, lack of adequate medical treatment or other factors that could have contributed to her death. In other words, there was no investigation to determine if other facts or conduct could have propitiated, permitted or caused the violations of the rights to life and personal integrity declared in this case, which could have been determined by ascertaining whether there were other types of responsibilities, such as administrative ones. However, in the absence specific arguments on the part of the Commission and the representatives, and without prejudice to any other lines of investigation that the State could have initiated and pursued, if applicable under its domestic legislation, Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 117 and 118 and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 204. 369 87