to provide an effective remedy with regard to the violations that occurred. Furthermore, the State has failed to comply with its obligation to protect human rights defenders. 104. The representatives agreed with the observations of the Commission. They added that article 27 of the Haitian Constitution stipulates that the alleged victims of arbitrary acts against personal liberty can have recourse to the domestic courts to file criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of such acts and that, in the instant case, the State failed in its obligation to conduct the corresponding investigation, because Mr. Fleury never had the right to present the case. They indicated that the impunity of the State agents who committed human rights violations has both individual and collective effects. In particular, it affects society’s right to know the truth about what happened. In addition, they argued that the absence of a thorough and effective investigation of the facts is an additional source of suffering and anguish for the victims and their close family, who have the right to know what happened. In addition, the State must ensure that the settlement of the claims of victims of human rights violations and their immediate family is not obstructed or impeded by overly complicated procedures or obstacles in relation to compensation. B. Considerations of the Court 105. The Court has considered that the State is obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to those who allege that they are victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation of the States to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights established by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).89 106. In addition, the Court has affirmed that the obligation to investigate, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish human rights violations is among the positive measures that States must adopt in order to ensure the rights recognized in the Convention,90 pursuant to Article 1(1) thereof. This is an obligation that must be assumed by the State as an inherent legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a mere measure taken by private interests, that depends upon the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or upon the production of evidence by private individuals. 91 107. The Court has indicated that Article 8 of the Convention reveals that the victims of human rights violations or their next of kin must have wide-ranging possibilities of being heard and taking part in the respective proceedings, both to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and also to seek adequate reparation.92 In light of this obligation, once the State authorities are aware of an incident they must initiate, ex officio and without 89 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 53, para. 122. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 7, para. 166, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 127. 90 91 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits. supra note 7, para. 177, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 17, para. 112 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 58, para. 192, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra note 45, para. 192. 92 29