103 l) to implement the right to consular notification; and m) to conduct a training and educational campaign for judicial, police, and penitentiary officials, as well as for physicians and psychologists, on how to prevent torture and document claims in regards torture. For this, it should follow the procedures and provisions of specialized international manuals such as the Istanbul Protocol. Pleadings of the State 253. In regards to measures of non-recidivism, the State pointed out that if the Court finds it responsible, in case of apology it would be necessary to establish which State official should do so. Considerations of the Court a) Obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations, to identify, try, and punish those responsible 254. The Court has concluded, inter alia, that the State abridged Articles 5, 7, 8, 21 and 25 of the Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, and it did not comply with the obligations set forth in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Daniel Tibi. The State also breached Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in combination with Article 1(1) of that same Convention, to the detriment of Beatrice Baruet, Sarah and Jeanne Camila Vachon, Lisianne Judith Tibi and Valerian Edouard Tibi, in the specific terms set forth in this Judgment. 255. Impunity of those responsible for the violations prevails in the instant case. More than nine years after the facts took place, those responsible for the unlawful and arbitrary detention and the violations of Daniel Tibi’s right to fair trial, and those responsible for the tortures suffered by the victim, have not been investigated or punished. This has generated a situation of impunity that infringes the duty of the State, injures the victim and his next of kin, and fosters chronic recidivism of the human rights violations.177 256. This Court has repeatedly referred to the right of the victims and their next of kin to know what happened and who were the agents of the State responsible for the facts.178 The Court has pointed out that “[w]henever there has been a human rights violation, the State has a duty to investigate the facts and punish those responsible, [...] and this obligation must be complied with seriously and not as a mere formality”.179 177 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 228; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 9, para. 257; and Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations, supra note 9, para. 79. 178 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. supra note 8, para. 229; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 9, para. 258; and Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations, supra note 9, para. 80. 179 See Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 229; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 9, para. 258; and Case of Molina Theissen, Reparations, supra note 9, para. 80.