107 entitled to learn the whole truth of the facts,172 even the names of all responsible parties. Upon being acknowledged and enforced in a specific situation, this right to truth becomes a relevant means for redress and creates a fair expectation in the victims that the State is required to satisfy.173 223. The Court views as a significant first step towards reparation the publication of Perú’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which, on the La Cantuta case stated, inter alia, as follows: [T]he CRV urges the Judiciary and provides its support for it to continue to investigate the submitted facts in order to identify those responsible therefor and punish them, as required under the domestic legislation, for the human rights violations and other crimes committed against the administration of justice and the State’s authorities. Furthermore, it requests that the Supreme Court of Justice of Perú hand down a judicial ruling on the inapplicability of Laws No. 26,479 and No. 26,492, the amnesty laws, based on the judgments issued by the [Inter-American] C[ourt of Human Rights] in the case of Barrios Altos. […] 224. It is the Court’s view that the work undertaken by said Commission constitutes a major effort and has contributed to the search for and establishment of truth for a period of Perú’s history. However, and without failing to recognize the foregoing, the Court deems it appropriate to specify that the “historical truth” contained in said report does not complete or substitute the State’s obligation to also establish the truth through court proceedings,174 as acknowledged by the State itself by keeping the investigations open even after the report was issued. In this regard, it is worth noting that, in the framework of Articles 1(1), 8 and 25 of the Convention, the victims’ next of kin have a right, and the State has the obligation, to have what happened to the victims effectively investigated by the State’s authorities, the parties allegedly responsible for such illegal acts prosecuted, and, if appropriate, appropriately punished. In view of the above, the State is required to immediately take the steps required to effectively complete, in a reasonable period, the pending investigations and the criminal proceedings instituted before the regular criminal courts and to open, if appropriate, such proceedings as may be necessary to establish the criminal liability of all perpetrators of the acts committed to the detriment of Hugo Muñoz-Sánchez, Dora OyagueFierro, Marcelino Rosales-Cárdenas, Bertila Lozano-Torres, Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea, Armando Richard Amaro-Cóndor, Robert Edgar Teodoro-Espinoza, Heráclides Pablo-Meza, Juan Gabriel Mariños-Figueroa, and Felipe Flores-Chipana. 225. In this regard, the Court will emphasize that the acts committed in La Cantuta to the detriment of the victims of extra-legal execution or forced disappearance, are crimes against humanity that cannot go unpunished, are non-extinguishable and cannot be the subject-matter of amnesty (supra para. 152). Accordingly, the Court’s considerations in the case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. v. Chile apply: 172 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 164; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 245; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 266. 173 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 164; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 3, para. 266; and Cases of Blanco-Romero et al., supra note 100, para. 95. 174 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 6, para. 150.