17 in, supported or tolerated the human rights violations that involve the international responsibility of the State for violation of the Convention.31 45. As this Court has indicated in the specific case:32 185. At the time of the [...] judgment, after more than ten years, those responsible for the detention, torture, and extrajudicial execution of Juan Humberto Sánchez have not yet been identified and punished, for which reason there is a situation of grave impunity regarding the respective facts. This situation constitutes a violation of the aforementioned duty of the State, it is injurious to the victim, to his next of kin and to society as a whole, and it fosters chronic recidivism of those human rights violations.33 186. It is therefore necessary, as the Court has set forth both in [the] judgment [...] and in previous cases,34 for the State to conduct an effective investigation of the facts of this case, to identify those responsible for them, both the direct perpetrators and those who instigated them, as well as possible accessories after the fact, and to punish them administratively and criminally as appropriate. The domestic proceedings involved must address the violations of the right to life and of the right to humane treatment to which this judgment refers. The next of kin of the victim must have full access and the capacity to act, at all stages and levels of the said investigations, in accordance with domestic laws and the provisions of the American Convention. The results of those investigations must be made known to the public, for Honduran society to know the truth. 46. In relation to the arguments concerning attachment 1 to the application, entitled “Informe Secreto”, in its judgment of June 7, 2003, and after the necessary considerations,35 this Court decided to omit this document from the body of evidence and, therefore, the measures proposed by the State to verify the authenticity of this document are unnecessary. The Court also considered that there was sufficient other evidence to confirm the facts, and this position is consistent with the broad attributes with regard to probative material that Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure grants the Court. 47. The Court also considers, as it has in previous cases, that in proceedings to determine human rights violations, the State’s defense cannot be based on the impossibility of the petitioner to allege evidence when such evidence cannot be obtained without the State’s cooperation, so that the parties and, in particular the State, must provide the Court with all the necessary probative elements.36 31 Cf. The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 30, para. 75; the “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 15, para. 91; and Blake case. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, paras. 76 to 78. 32 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 185 and 186. 33 Cf. Las Palmeras case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 53.a); El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 117; and Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, paras. 97, 101 and 112. 34 Cf. Las Palmeras case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 66; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 118; and Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, para. 99. 35 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 47 to 50. Cf. The case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 20, para. 99; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 20, para. 81; Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 15, para. 152; Cantoral Benavides case, supra note 20, para. 55; Durand and Ugarte case, supra note 15, para. 51; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 30, para. 251; Neira Alegría et al. case. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 65; Gangaram Panday case. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 49; Godínez Cruz case, supra note 30, para. 141; and Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 30, para. 135. 36