48 161. The Court considers that, due to the lack of investigation, the alleged perpetrators escaped punishment even after 16 years of the occurrence of the events. The State itself, upon accepting the claim, admitted that there were procedural defects regarding domestic proceedings before November 2000 (supra para. 20). 162. Therefore, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with its obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity, set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention, of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García, since no serious, complete and effective investigation of the events referred to in this judgment was carried out after their occurrence or after state authorities learnt of said events. The aforementioned circumstances amount to an infringement of Articles 8 and 25. Furthermore, the Court finds that the State failed to comply with Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture regarding the obligation to investigate and punish torture in domestic courts after April 28, 1991 (supra para. 157). c) Impunity in the instant case 163. The Commission sustained that the relatives of the victim and the community as a whole should be aware of the events amounting to violations examined in the instant case. 164. In various opportunities, the Court indicated that the State has a duty to avoid and fight impunity, and the Court has described the characteristics of that duty on various occasions,92 as regards human rights violations as those committed in the instant case. 165. In this case, the lack of an effective remedy and, consequently, the denial of justice to the next of kin of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García, evidence said impunity. 166. As pointed out by the Court in prior cases, the next of kin of victims of serious human rights violations are entitled to know the truth about those violations.93 The aforementioned right is embodied in the victim`s or its next of kin’s right to request competent governmental authorities to clarify violations and the corresponding responsibility through appropriate investigation and trial.94 167. Therefore, in the instant case, the next of kin of Mr. Baldeón-García are entitled to, and the State has the duty to procure, an effective investigation of the events involving the victim by state authorities, proceedings against the alleged perpetrators and, if applicable, the appropriate penalties imposed to redress the damage sustained by said next of kin. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court deems that the consideration given by the CVR to the case of Mr. Baldeón-García Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 237; Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 59, para. 203; and Case of Huilca Tecse, supra note 2, para. 82. 92 93 Cf. Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 1, para. 78; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 297; and Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 59, paras. 203 and 204. Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 7, para. 62; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 88, para. 62; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations (art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 97. 94