19 56. Despite all the time that has elapsed, and although proceedings have been conducted, the fact is that they have failed to convict and punish the responsible parties, all of which fosters impunity. This Court has defined impunity as follows: the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of rights protected by the American Convention, [by virtue of the obligation of the State] to use all the legal means at its disposal to combat that situation, since impunity fosters chronic recidivism of human rights violations, and total defenseless of victims and their relatives.8 57. The Court notes that in the instant case, the parties acknowledged that the National Police officers implicated in the events obstructed or refused to properly cooperate with the investigations undertaken to clarify the case, and either tampered with, concealed or destroyed evidence.9 58. It is the jurisprudence constante of this Court that it is not enough that such recourses exist formally; they must be effective10; that is, they must give results or responses to the violations of rights established in the Convention.11 This Court has also held that remedies that, due to the general situation of the country or even the particular circumstances of any given case, prove illusory cannot be considered effective.12 This may happen when, for example, they prove to be useless in practice because the jurisdictional body does not have the independence necessary to arrive at an impartial decision13 or because they lack the means to execute their decisions; or any other situation in which justice is being denied, such as cases in which there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a judgment.14 This guarantee of 8 The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala). Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. Series C No. 77, paragraph 100. Cf. also Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 4, paragraph 211, and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paragraph 173. 9 Some of the obstructionist behaviors were as follows: changing the clothing worn by the victims and then destroying the victims’ clothes; failing to search the bodies at the scene of the crime; failing to collect evidence; threatening and intimidating relatives and witnesses, and circulating false information concerning the victims’ activities. Cf. also Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 4, paragraph 200, and Villagrán et al. Case (The “Street Children” Case), supra note 4, paragraphs 229-233. The European Court has written that one of an international court’s functions is to determine whether the integrity of the proceedings, and the way in which the evidence was produced, were fair. Cf. inter alia, European Court of Human Rights, Edwards v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 16 December 1992, Series A no. 247-B, p. 34, and European Court of Human Rights, Vidakl v. Belgium, Judgment of 22 April 1992, Series A no. 235B, p. 33. 10 Cf., Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Case. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paragraphs 111-113; Constitutional Court Case, Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paragraph 90; Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 4, paragraph 191; Cesti Hurtado Case, Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, paragraph 125; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 8, paragraph 164; Suárez Rosero Case, Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, paragraph 63; Godínez Cruz Case, Judgment of January 20, 1989, Series C No. 5, paragraph 66; Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 63, and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 of the Americcan Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, paragraph 24. 11 Cf., inter alia, Constitutional Court Case, supra note 10, paragraph 89, and Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 4, paragraph 191. 12 Cf., Ivcher Bronstein Case, supra note 7, paragraph 136; Constitutional Court Case, supra note 10, paragraph 89, and Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 4, paragraph 191. 13 Cf., Ivcher Bronstein Case, supra note 7, paragraph 115. 14 Cf., Constitutional Court Case, supra note 10, paragraph 93.