67 right to defend oneself, so that it is not used as a mechanism to delay the process, and f) ensure that the different organs in the judicial system involved in the case have the human and material resources necessary to perform the tasks adequately, independently, and impartially, and that the individuals who participate in the investigation, including victims, witnesses, and justice agents have appropriate security guarantees. 234. The Court deems it necessary to reiterate what it has indicated on repeated occasions with regards to the obligation to guarantee rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the obligation to prevent and fight impunity, which the Court has defined as “the lack of investigation, pursuit, arrest, prosecution, and conviction of those responsible for human rights violations.” To fulfill this obligation, the State has to fight impunity through all legal means available, given that it is “conducive to chronic repetition of the human rights violations and total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin.”255 Likewise, the State has to “organize its governmental apparatus and, in general, all structures through which public power is exercised, so as to legally ensure the free and full exercise of human rights.” 256 235. The Court considers that for purposes of the instant case, to make the victims’ access to justice effective, the judges must guide and lead the legal proceeding with the purpose of not sacrificing justice and due process for formality and impunity, as well as to process legal remedies so as to restrict disproportionate use of actions which may cause delays or hinder the proceeding. 236. Lastly, the State must publish the results of the investigation and of the criminal proceeding to all Guatemalan society. B.2) Regulation of the Law on the appeal for legal protection 237. The Commission requested the necessary measures to be taken so that the appeal for legal protection is not used as a delaying mechanism. The representatives requested the Court to order the State to adapt the Law on the Appeal for legal protection to Inter-American standards, for which it must take into consideration the establishment of admissibility criteria for the appeal for legal protection; the determination of the specific jurisdiction of the different chambers to hear the appeal; expanding the possibilities of accumulating appeals; the obligation of the Supreme Court judges to refrain from hearing issues in which they have an interest, and the mechanisms for punishing abusive and delaying conduct by the attorneys. 238. The Court established that the State did not comply with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, given that in the instant case the authorities, within the current legal framework, have allowed and tolerated the abusive use of legal remedies, such as the appeal for legal protection. Likewise, the State has not adopted the precautions to make the appeal for legal protection a simple, quick, adequate, and effective remedy to protect human rights and to prevent it from becoming a means to delay and thwart the judicial process as a factor for impunity (supra para. 153). 255 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 29, para. 173; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 179, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brasil, supra note 23, para. 141. 256 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 30, para. 166; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 190, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 28, para. 62.