37 the National Congress is currently debating a law for the attribution of responsibilities (“ley de repetición de responsabilidades”), which is intended to become a project for the execution of the Inter-American System’s judgments and for the attribution of responsibility by the State against the responsible agents, if such would result from [a decision] on the merits of the case”. 128. The Court deems that the establishment of a Truth Commission - depending on its object, proceedings, structure and purposes - can contribute to build and safeguard historical memory, to clarify the events and to determine institutional, social and political responsibilities in certain periods of time of a society. The recognition of historical truths through this mechanism should not be understood as a substitute to the obligation of the State to ensure the judicial determination of individual and state responsibilities through the corresponding jurisdictional means, or as a substitute to the determination, by this Court, of any international responsibility. Both are about determinations of the truth which are complementary between themselves, since they all have their own meaning and scope, as well as particular potentialities and limits, which depend on the context in which they take place and on the cases and particular circumstances object of their analysis. In fact, the Court has granted a special value to reports of Truth Commissions as relevant evidence in the determination of the facts and of the international responsibility of the States in various cases which has been submitted before it108. 129. The Court views favorably the intention of the State to clarify the said facts which can amount to violations of human rights, through the establishment of a Truth Commission by presidential decree. However, in a case of denial of justice such as the instant case, the State’s obligation to ensure access to justice must not be understood as conditional to the eventual establishment or operation of such Truth Commission. Therefore, notwithstanding the potential contributions of the said Truth Commission to the knowledge of the facts, the State must fulfill its obligations to investigate and punish, through the relevant judicial means, all the facts constituents of human rights violations established in this Judgment. As such, the State must take into account the different aspects of the case which were decided by this Court in the present Judgment, including the considerations made regarding the victims, the rights held as violated and the determination of the seriousness and magnitude of the said violations. * * * 130. Considering the foregoing, the Court holds that the State is responsible for violating the rights enshrined in Article 8(1) and Article 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Alicia Marlene Rodríguez Villegas, Karen Lisette Zambrano Rodríguez, Johanna Elizabeth Zambrano Abad, Jennifer Karina Zambrano Abad, Ángel Homero Zambrano Abad, Jessica Marlene Baque Rodríguez and Christian Eduardo Zambrano Ruales, family members of Mr. Wilmer Zambrano Vélez; Silvia Liza Macías Acosta, Vanner Omar Caicedo Macías, Olmedo Germán Caicedo Macías, Marjuri Narcisa Caicedo Rodríguez, Gardenia Marianela Caicedo Rodríguez, Elkis Mariela Caicedo Rodríguez, Richard Olmedo Caicedo Rodríguez, Iris Estrella Caicedo Chamorro and Mayerlin Chamorro, family members of Mr. Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña; and Teresa María Susana Cedeño Paz, María Magdalena Caicedo Cedeño, Jessica Soraya Vera Cedeño, Manuel Abelardo Vera Cedeño, Brimer Ramón Vera Cedeño, Kleber Miguel Caicedo Ponce, Mariuxi Mariela Caicedo Ponce, José Kelvin Caicedo Ponce, Cira Seneida Caicedo Ponce, Gina Loyobrígida Caicedo Ponce, family members of José Miguel Caicedo Cobeña. Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 97; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, para. 80; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 14, para. 82; Case of Baldeón García, supra note 61, para. 72; Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 54; Case of De la Cruz-Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 61; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 42; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 95, para. 56, and Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 7, paras. 131-134. 108