the findings be published so that society at large would know the truth about what had happened and ensure that incidents of this kind would not recur. 458. The State asked in its answering brief for the Court “to apply the tenets marked out in earlier judgments with regard to any reparations, given the State's recognition of international responsibility for having exceeded a reasonable period,” and expressed its commitment to continue with all due haste in the judicial processes underway against the alleged perpetrators. The State added, in its final written pleadings, that it rejected each and every one of the representatives’ claims for reparations because, given the arguments put forward in this process, it was not proven that extrajudicial executions had occurred, nor, therefore, had the right to life enshrined in the Convention been breached. Considerations of the Court 459. The Court has ruled in this judgment, inter alia, that the initial procedures and securing of evidence lacked even a minimum degree of diligence, and the processes before the Peruvian courts did not take place within a reasonable period, as a new investigation was now underway into the facts involving Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, and the State had not shown that it exercised diligence in searching for, locating or capturing a fugitive suspect (supra para. 431). The Court further found, regarding the violation of the right to life, that the State was responsible for arbitrary deprivation of the life of only Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez (supra Chapter IX). 460. The Court consequently orders the State to proceed with the ongoing investigation and/or criminal process into the facts involving the extrajudicial execution of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, effectively, with due diligence and within a reasonable period to identify, prosecute and, as applicable, punish those responsible. Due diligence in the investigation signifies that all the pertinent State authorities are obliged to collaborate in the collection of evidence and must therefore provide the judge, prosecutor or other judicial authority with all the information requested and refrain from acts that could obstruct the investigative procedure.495 More specifically, the State should: a) ensure full access and capacity to act to the next of kin at all stages of the investigations, pursuant to domestic law and to the provisions of the American Convention;496 b) because this is a serious violation of human rights, and considering the particular details and the context in which the facts occurred, the State must refrain from invoking any measures such as amnesty for the perpetrators, or any similar provision, statute of limitations, ex post facto criminal laws, res judicata, double jeopardy, or any similar means to exempt anyone from responsibility in order to evade this obligation;497 c) ensure that the investigations and trials for the facts that comprise extrajudicial execution in the instant case remain at all times under the jurisdiction of the ordinary Cf. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 112, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 308. 495 Cf. Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 118, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 559. 496 Cf. Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní y García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra, para. 190. 497