25 or act whatsoever.31 As previously pointed out by the Court, in cases of brazen violations of fundamental rights, the imperious need to avoid repetition can only be satisfied by fighting impunity32 and by respecting the right of the victims and society as a whole to know the truth about the events. 33 Therefore, the obligation to investigate constitutes a means to guarantee said rights and non-compliance therewith imposes international liability upon the State. * * * 82. In view of the State’s acknowledgment (supra para. 20 to 22), the Court will examine in this section the non-fulfillment of the obligation to investigate the alleged violation of the rights set forth in Articles 4 and 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said treaty, and Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture, to the detriment of the relatives of the minor Vargas-Areco, and the violation of their right to personal integrity, regarding the events occurred after March 26, 1993. 83. The Court restates that the relatives of the victims of certain human rights violations may, in turn, be victims of other violations.34 Considering the acknowledgment made by the State and its own judicial precedents,35 the Court finds that the victims in the instant case are the relatives of the minor Gerardo VargasAreco, namely: Pedro Vargas and De Belén Areco, parents of the minor VargasAreco; Juan, María Elisa, Patricio, Daniel, Doralicia, Mario, María Magdalena, Sebastián and Jorge Ramón, all of them members of the Vargas-Areco family, siblings of Gerardo. * * * 84. In the instant case, the Court finds that the events occurred before March 26, 1993, imposed upon the State the obligation to investigate the alleged violation of the rights to life and personal integrity, in relation to which the Court cannot pass judgment. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that said obligation had not been fulfilled to the date the jurisdiction of the Court was recognized. 85. To that respect, note that the State ratified the American Convention on August 24, 1989; i.e. several months before the death of the minor Vargas-Areco and while he was in active military service. Therefore, after that date, the State had Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 402; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 201; and Case of Blanco-Romero et al. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 98. 31 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 4, para. 137; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 299; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 195. 32 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 289; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 166; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 21, para. 171. 33 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 3, para. 156; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 128; and Case of López-Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 119. 34 35 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 264; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 21, para. 235; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 25, para. 257.