-88what happened to them and, if a crime has been committed, to know that those responsible will be punished.50 As the Court has stated, “whenever there has been a human rights violation, the State has a duty to investigate the facts and punish those responsible, […] and this obligation must be complied with in a serious manner and not as a mere formality.”51 169. These measures benefit not only the next of kin of the victims, but also society as a whole, because, by knowing the truth about such crimes, they can be prevented in the future.52 170. The Court has established that the State has the obligation to avoid and combat impunity, which the Court has defined as “the absence of any investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for the violations of rights protected by the American Convention.”53 171. With regard to the State’s obligation to investigate and, if appropriate, punish those responsible, the criminal proceedings reopened in the Chalatenango Trial Court are still at the investigation stage. However, the Inter-American Court observes that when filing these proceedings on May 27, 1998, that court based this action on articles 125(2) and 126 of the Penal Code in force, which regulated the prescription of criminal proceedings (supra para. 48(25)), without going into detail on this point. The Court also notes that, as the State has argued (supra para. 51(h)), the General Amnesty Act to consolidate the peace, which establishes that, inter alia, those who have taken part in committing the crimes of abduction and extortion shall not enjoy [the] amnesty, has not been applied in the domestic criminal proceedings. However, this law is still in force in El Salvador and has been applied in other cases. 172. The Court observes that the State must ensure that the domestic proceedings to investigate what happened to Ernestina and Erlinda and, if appropriate, punish those responsible, has the desired effect. The State must abstain from using figures such as amnesty and prescription or the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility, or measures intended to prevent criminal prosecution or suppress the effects of a conviction.54 This Court repeats that, in relation to compliance with the obligation to investigate and punish: […] all amnesty provisions, provisions on prescription and the establishment of measures designed to eliminate responsibility are inadmissible, because they are intended to prevent the investigation and punishment of those responsible for serious human rights violations such as torture, extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary execution and forced disappearance, all of them prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by international 50 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 127; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 96; and Case of Tibi, supra note 20, para. 256. 51 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 127; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 96; and Case of Tibi, supra note 20, para. 256. 52 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 259; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 77. 53 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 148; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 175; and Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 19, para. 126. 54 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 10, para. 148; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 263; and Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 19, para. 126.