93 a) The efforts of the survivors, next of kin of the victims, and human rights organizations to establish the truth and seek justice, and also the support and monitoring efforts of the international community, have contributed, within the framework of the national effort, to consolidating the peace process, which constitutes a guarantee of non-repetition, and b) Given the difficult of identifying each of the victims who died in the massacre, as well as their next of kin and beneficiaries, reparation measures will be ordered that dignify and rehabilitate the surviving next of kin and victims, instead of merely providing individual financial reparation. These rehabilitation measures could consist of medical and psychological treatment and social services that include educational and productive projects for the affected community, which would make the most useful contribution to rebuilding the social fabric, and reconciling the victims of the conflict and the State. Considerations of the Court 93. Reparations are not exhausted by compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage (supra paras. 72 to 76 and 80 to 89); other forms of reparation must be added. In this section, the Court will begin to determine measures of satisfaction seeking to repair the non-pecuniary damage, which are not of a pecuniary nature, but rather have public repercussions. These measures have particular relevance in this case, owing to the extreme gravity of the facts and the collective nature of the damage produced. a) Obligation to investigate the facts that resulted in the violations, and identify, prosecute and punish those responsible 94. The Court has concluded, inter alia, that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the victims in the instant case, owing to the inadequacy of the investigations and the obstruction and delay of the criminal proceedings opened to punish the perpetrators and masterminds of the facts related to the massacre carried out on July 18, 1982. In this regard, the Court considers that the persecution, threats and harassment by State agents, which the victims endured, was aimed at preventing them from reporting the massacre, avoiding elucidation of the facts, and concealing those responsible. Some survivors were also threatened because they participated in the domestic proceedings and in the international proceedings before the inter-American system; consequently, the Court adopted provisional measures in their favor (supra paras. 23 to 25). The Court established that, to ensure due process, the State must facilitate all necessary measures to protect the victims from harassment and threats that seek to hinder the proceedings.262 When the victims reported the existence of the clandestine cemeteries at the site of the massacre, the criminal investigations opened by the Salamá Court of First Instance and by the Attorney General’s office were obstructed by, inter alia: an unjustified delay in the exhumations procedures, misplacement of the ballistic evidence for more than two years, and the Defense Ministry’s refusal to provide information requested by the Attorney General’s office. The criminal proceedings opened more than ten years’ ago to clarify the facts have not been effective; as has been demonstrated, they are still pending and therefore 262 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 199.