77 that the ballistics tests were mislaid from the file before the judicial authority; that the only person detained was subsequently released owing to lack of evidence; that there was a campaign to cover-up the violent acts that had occurred, all of which had increased impunity; b) It undertook to apply the necessary measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, and would make the greatest effort in these areas, and c) The State’s attitude is not to the liking of the parallel groups embedded in Guatemalan society. They have exercised political pressure in the Congress of the Republic, by summoning and interpellating public officials who have honorably given a humanist meaning to the State’s action and who do not want to hide the historical truth from a people who were repressed throughout the war years. Considerations of the Court a) Obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations and identify, prosecute and punish those responsible 125. It has been proved that the systematic obstruction of the administration of justice and due process has prevented the identification, prosecution and punishment of those who perpetrated and masterminded the execution of Messrs. Carpio Nicolle, Villacorta Fajardo, Ávila Guzmán and Rivas González, and also the grave injuries to Sydney Shaw Díaz, and led to feelings of insecurity, impotence and anguish among the various victims in the case (supra paras. 76(23) to 76(65), 118(d) and (e)). 126. Thus, after more than 11 years, the impunity of those responsible for perpetrating and masterminding the acts still reigns; this harms the victims and encourages the chronic repetition of the respective human rights violations.131 127. The Court has referred repeatedly to the right of the next of kin of victims to know what happened and the identity of the State agents responsible for the respective facts.132 As the Court has stated, bearing in mind the aggravating circumstances of this case, “[w]henever there has been a human rights violation, the State has a duty to investigation the facts and to punish those responsible, […] and this obligation must be complied with seriously and not as a mere formality.”133 128. The Court has reiterated that every person, including the next of kin of victims of grave human rights violations, has the right to know the truth. Consequently, the next of kin of the victims and society as a whole must be informed of everything that happened concerning such violations. This right to the truth has been developed by international human rights law;134 its recognition and exercise in 131 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 255; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 116, para. 228; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 125, para. 175. 132 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 256; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 116, para. 229; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 125, para. 258. 133 Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 256; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 116, para. 229; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 125, para. 258. 134 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 11, para. 257; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 116, para. 230; and Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 125, para. 261.