81 responsible for the violations of these rights are agents of the public sector, individuals or groups of individuals127, because, according to the rules of international human rights law, the act or omission of any public authority constitutes an action that may be attributed to the State and involve its responsibility, in the terms set out in the Convention128. 211. The Court has confirmed that there existed and still exists in Guatemala, a situation of impunity with regard to the facts of the instant case (supra 134, 187 and 190), because, despite the State's obligation to prevent and investigate129, it did not do so.. The Court understands impunity to be the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention, in view of the fact that the State has the obligation to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat that situation, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human right violations, and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives130. 212. This Court has clearly indicated that the obligation to investigate must be fulfilled in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the Government131. 213. The violations of the right to personal safety and liberty, to life, to physical, mental and moral integrity, to judicial guarantees and protection, which have been established in this judgment, are attributable to Guatemala, which had the obligation to respect these rights and guarantee them. Consequently, Guatemala is responsible for the non-observance of Article 1(1) of the Convention, in relation to violations established in Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the Convention. 214. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated Article 1(1) of the Convention, in relation to its Articles 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25. 127 Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 174. 128 Cf. Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, supra note 125, para. 56; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 173; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 164. 129 Understanding this figure as established in reiterated jurisprudence, Castillo Páez Case, supra note 52, para. 90; Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, supra note 125, para. 58; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, paras. 174-177. 130 131 Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 173. Cf. Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 226; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 188; and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 177.