21 available, the violations committed within its jurisdiction in order to identify those responsible, impose appropriate punishments upon them, and guarantee the victim adequate reparation.”60 63. This duty to prevent includes all those measures of a legal, political, administrative, and cultural nature that promote the protection of human rights.61 Hence, the deprivation of liberty in legally recognized centers and the existence of detainee records constitute fundamental safeguards, inter alia, against forced disappearances. On the contrary, the implementation and maintenance of clandestine detention centers constitutes per se a breach of the obligation to guarantee insofar as it directly affects the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment [personal integrity], life62 and juridical personality. 64. Hence, since one of the objectives of forced disappearance is to prevent the exercise of the appropriate legal recourses and procedural guarantees, when a person is kidnapped, detained, or otherwise deprived of his or her liberty so that he or she may be forcibly disappeared, if the victim cannot access the recourses available, it is fundamental that his or her next-of- kin or others close to him or her are able to access prompt and effective proceedings or judicial recourses in order to determine the victim’s whereabouts or health condition, or to identify the authority that ordered his or her deprivation of freedom or brought it about.63 65. In sum, where there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person has been subjected to forced disappearance, State authorities must undertake an investigation.64 This obligation exists regardless of whether a complaint is filed, given that in cases of forced disappearance, international law and the general duty to guarantee impose the obligation to investigate the case ex officio, without delay, and in a serious, impartial, and effective manner. This is a fundamental and determining element for the protection of the rights affected by these situations.65 In any case, all State authorities, public officials, or individuals who have received news about acts directed toward the forced disappearance of persons must denounce them immediately.66 60 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para. 174; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 236, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 142. 61 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para. 175; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 63, Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra note 60, para. 252. 62 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 63. 63 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 64 and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 141. Article X of the Convention on Forced Disappearance refers to this obligation. 64 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 143 and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 92. See also, Article 12.2 of the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons against Forced Disappearance and Article 13 of the Declaration on the Protection of all Persons against Forced Disappearance. Likewise, paragraph 62 of the Declaration and the Action Program of Viena approved by the World Conference on Human Rights of June 25, 1993, stablishes that: “[i]t is the obligation of all States, under any circumstances, to execute an investigation whenever there are reasons to believe that a forced disappearance has occurred in a territory within its jurisdiction and, if the complaints might be confirmed, to prosecute the perpetrators of such act.” 65 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140. para. 145; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 143, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 92. 66 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 65; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 143, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 92.