51 pursuant to international law.”134 Indeed, the Charter for the Special Tribunal for Sierra Leona stated that the amnesty granted to persons accused of crimes against humanity, which are violations of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II,135 as well as of other serious violations of international humanitarian law, “shall not be an impediment to subject [them] to trial.” 110. The obligation that arises pursuant to international law to try, and, if found guilty, to punish the perpetrators of certain international crimes, among which are crimes against humanity, is derived from the duty of protection embodied in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. This obligation implies the duty of the States Parties to organize the entire government system, and in general, all agencies through which the public power is exercised, in such manner as to legally protect the free and full exercise of human rights. As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate, and punish all violations of the rights recognized by the Convention and, at the same time, guarantee the reinstatement, if possible, of the violated rights, and as the case may be, the reparation of the damage caused due to the violation of human rights. If the State agencies act in a manner that such violation goes unpunished, and prevents the reinstatement, as soon as possible, of such rights to the victim of such violation, it can be concluded that such State has not complied with its duty to guarantee the free and full exercise of those rights to the individuals who are subject to its jurisdiction.136 111. Crimes against humanity give rise to the violation of a series of undeniable rights that are recognized by the American Convention, which violation cannot remain unpunished. The Court has stated on several occasions that the State has the duty to prevent and combat impunity, which the Court has defined as “the lack of investigation, prosecution, arrest, trial, and conviction of those responsible for the violation of the rights protected by the American Convention.”137 Likewise, the Court has determined that the investigation must be conducted resorting to all legal means available and must be focused on the determination of the truth and the investigation, prosecution, arrest, trial, and conviction of those persons that are responsible for the facts, both as perpetrators and instigators, especially when State agents are or may be involved in such events.138 In that respect, the Court has pointed out that those resources which, in view of the general conditions of the 134 Cf. UN Report of the Secretary General S/2000/915 on the establishment of a Tribunal for Sierra Leona, of October 4, 2000, para. 24. 135 Cf. UN Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 regarding the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II). 136 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166, and Case of Godínez-Cruz. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 175. 137 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 14, para. 299; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre,” Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 237; Case of the Moiwana Community, Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 203. 138 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 14, para. 148; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 14, para. 94; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143.