12 shown that, despite the different domestic recourses used to clarify the facts, they had not effectively prosecuted and, if it were applicable, punished those responsible.”15 The Court reiterated at that time that it understands impunity to be: the lack of investigation, persecution, capture, prosecution, and conviction of those responsible for the violations of the rights protected by the American Convention, provided that the State is obliged to fight said situation with all legal means available, since impunity favors the chronic repetition of the violations of human rights and the complete defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin.16 During Monitoring of Compliance of the present case, the Court received information from the State according to which “there was a dismissal of the case against Julio Roberto Alpírez and colleagues on March 8, 1999.” With regard to said information, the representatives mentioned that the State “did not inform of the reasons for the discontinuance of the investigation […], or the reason for which it did not continue with the investigation and trial against Colonel Julio Alpírez and colleagues.”17 22. In this regard, taking into account that eight years after the Judgment on Merits was issued in the present case the investigations had not been effectively impelled, the Court decided to issue an Order in January 2009, in which it considered that the investigations had been ineffective, which included, among other factors, the information on the dismissal that occurred in 1999. 23. In said Order of 2009 the Tribunal, referring once again to its jurisprudence regarding Guatemala, indicated that “impunity became an essential factor that forms part of systematic patterns that allowed grave human rights violations to be committed during the armed conflict.” Specifically, the Court mentioned that its jurisprudence allowed it to state that “the Guatemalan justice administration system was ineffective in guaranteeing compliance with the law and the protection of the victims’ rights in almost all the violations of human rights committed during that time” and that “[i]n this sense, the lack of investigation of such facts became a deciding factor in the systematic practice of violations of human rights.”18 24. 15 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 11, para. 134. 16 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, supra note 11, para. 211 17 Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 11, 2008, Considering Clauses thirty-six and thirty-seven. 18 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the