59 244. The Court reiterates that the State is obliged to combat this situation of impunity by all available means, since impunity promotes the chronic repetition of human rights violations and leaves victims and their families, who have a right to know the truth about the facts, totally defenseless.183 The exercise and recognition of the right to the truth in a specific situation constitutes a measure of reparation. Therefore, in the instant case, the right to the truth gives rise to the victims justified expectations, which the State must satisfy.184 245. Taking into account the above, as well as the Court’s case law,185 the Court orders that the State must conduct effectively the criminal proceeding that is underway, and those proceedings yet to be initiated, in order to determine those responsible for the facts of this case and to apply the consequence provided for by law. Also, the State, through its competent institutions, must exhaust all investigative leads regarding what happened to Heliodoro Portugal to ascertain the truth about the facts. 246. The Court recalls that, in compliance with its obligation to investigate and, if applicable, punish those responsible, the State must remove all de facto and de jure obstacles that impede the required investigation of the facts, and it must use all available means to expedite that investigation and the related proceedings, in order to avoid the repetition of such grave facts as those of the instant case. The State cannot use any law or domestic legal provision to waive its obligation to investigate and, if applicable, criminally convict those responsible for the offenses perpetrated against Heliodoro Portugal. 247. Additionally, taking into account the Court’s case law,186 the State must ensure that Heliodoro Portugal’s next of kin have full access and capacity to act at all stages and in all instances of the said investigations and proceedings, in accordance with domestic law and the provisions of the American Convention. The result of the proceedings must be publicly divulged so that Panamanian society is able to know the judicial determination of the facts and those responsible in this case.187 ii) Publication of the judgment 248. As the Court has ordered in other cases,188 as a measure of satisfaction, the State must publish once in the official gazette and in another newspaper with widespread national circulation, chapters I, III, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of this judgment, without the corresponding footnotes, and its operative paragraphs. The State shall have six months as 183 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 174; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 165, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 161, para. 289. 184 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 181; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 17, para. 149, and Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 183, para. 165. 185 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Perú. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 199; Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 183, para. 166, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 161, para. 295. 186 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 186; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 17, para. 149, and Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 183, para. 166. 187 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 185, para. 199; Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 183, para. 166, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 161, para. 295. 188 Cf. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Perú. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 24, para. 180, and Case of Kimel, supra note 61, para. 125.