b) Ensure that the different organs of the system of justice involved in the case have the necessary human and material resources to perform their tasks in a satisfactory, independent and impartial manner, and that the persons who take part in the investigation, including victims, witnesses, and agents of justice, have adequate guarantees of security; 266 c) Ensure that due diligence in the investigation means that all the 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 required and abstain from acts that entail the obstruction of the progress of the investigative process; d) Ensure the next of kin of Assistant Commissioner Jorge Omar Gutiérrez full access and capacity to act at all stages of this investigation, pursuant to domestic law and the norms of the American Convention, 267 and e) Publicize the results of the proceedings so that society may know the facts that are the purpose of this case, as well as those responsible. 268 C. Measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition 155. International case law and, in particular that of the Court, has established repeatedly that the Judgment may constitute per se a form of reparation. 269 However, considering the circumstances of the case and the adverse effects on the victims arising from the violations of the American Convention declared to their detriment, as well as the Agreement reached by the parties, the Court finds it pertinent to determine the following measures of reparation. C.1. Satisfaction C.1.1. Public act to acknowledge international responsibility and public apology 156. The representatives asked the Court to order the State “to acknowledge publicly its international responsibility for the events to the detriment of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez and his next of kin, and to offer a public apology for the human rights violations in which it has incurred,” as well as for the “lack of an effective investigation into what happened.” In this regard, they asked that an act of acknowledgement of responsibility be organized, with the participation of national and provincial authorities, in which the victim’s memory is commemorated. The Commission did not refer specifically to this point. 157. In the Agreement (supra para. 17), Argentina undertook to organize a public act to acknowledge responsibility for the violation of Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez and his next of kin. 158. The Court appreciates greatly the State’s willingness to organize a public act to acknowledge its international responsibility for the facts of the instant case, and therefore 266 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández, supra, para. 195. 267 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para.149, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra, para. 194. 268 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra, para. 233, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra, para. 194. 269 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 1996. Series C No. 29, para. 56, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.), supra, para. 250. 55