388. The Court repeats that, in keeping with its case law, 552 it will not consider the next of kin of the victim as an injured party and will not rule on the requests made by the representative in their favor (supra para. 25). B) Obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations, and to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible, as appropriate 389. The Commission asked the Court to order the State “[t]o investigate the facts that violated the American Convention, in an impartial and effective manner and within a reasonable time, in order to clarify them completely, identify the masterminds and perpetrators, and impose the corresponding penalties.” The Commission also asked the Court to order the State “[t]o establish the corresponding administrative, disciplinary or criminal measures to respond to the acts or omissions of the State officials that contributed to the denial of justice and the current impunity of the facts of the case.” 390. The State indicated that “at the time of the facts, the domestic authorities did not observe any well-founded reason […] or receive a complaint by the petitioner with regard to any type of violation of her human rights […] that would justify opening the pertinent investigations, [and, s]ubsequently, this situation became materially impossible” owing to Ms. J.’s departure from the country. It affirmed that “if the Inter-American Court declares the violation of the American Convention based on any of the acts denounced by the petitioner, the Peruvian State will be obliged to take the pertinent measures to clarify the supposed responsibility of the public officials.” 391. The Court has determined in this Judgment that the State violated, to the detriment of Ms. J., Articles 5(1), 5(2), 11(1) and 11(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument and Article 6 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, owing to the illtreatment suffered by Ms. J. at the time of her initial arrest, and also Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture and Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, because the State did not investigate the violation of personal integrity perpetrated against Ms. J. (supra paras. 302 to 368). 392. Consequently, as it has established on other occasions, 553 these facts must be investigated effectively in proceedings against those presumably responsible for the attacks on personal integrity and privacy that occurred. Accordingly, the Court decides that the State must open and conduct effectively a criminal investigation into the acts that violated Article 5(2) of the Convention and that were committed against Ms. J., in order to determine the eventual criminal responsibilities and, as appropriate, apply the legal penalties and consequences. This obligation must be met within a reasonable time, taking into consideration the criteria indicated for investigations in this type of case (supra paras. 341 to 352). In addition, The State must expedite the pertinent disciplinary, administrative of criminal actions in the event that, during the investigation into the said facts, it is revealed that there were procedural or investigative irregularities related to them. 554 C) Other measures of integral guarantees of non-repetition 552 150. reparation: rehabilitation, satisfaction and Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, para. 98, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela, supra, para. 553 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 174, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 344. 554 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 215, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 344. 115