3 Rights Division of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, is in the phase of confidential investigation, in conformity with Article 314 of the Code of Civil Procedure.” 7. The representatives indicated that “it is essential that [they and] the State determine the relevant and appropriate mechanisms for dialogue and duly investigate the facts.” Thusly, the representatives noted that “they have no issue with coming together with the State in order to address this issue.” 8. For its part, the Commission “observe[d] with concern that the State had only affirmed that the investigation is presently at the “confidential investigation” stage, without providing further details on the matter.” In this regard, the Commission “request[ed] that the Court require that the State swiftly provide detailed information on the investigation together with the corresponding evidence.” 9. Accordingly, the Tribunal observes that more than twenty years after the occurrence of the acts in question, and more than two years since pronouncement of the Judgment, the violations found in the present case continue to benefit from impunity. In the Judgment, the Court stated that impunity was a factor in the systematic patterns that enabled gross human rights violations to be committed during the armed conflict in Guatemala.5 Furthermore, the Court notes that “the Guatemalan justice system was ineffective in ensuring the enforcement of the law and the protection of the rights of victims in regard to almost all human rights violations committed at that time.” Furthermore, “in that sense, the lack of investigation into such acts was a determining factor in the routine human rights violations.”6 10. As a consequence, the Court reiterates the contents of the Judgment and its constant jurisprudence with regard to, pursuant to the guarantee obligation provided for in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State obligation to prevent and combat impunity, which the Court has defined as “the combined lack of investigation, prosecution, arrest, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.” In this regard, the Court has declared that the State “has the obligation to combat this situation by using all available legal means because impunity fosters the chronic repetition of such human rights violations and the total defenselessness of victims and their relatives.”7 This obligation implies the States Parties’ duty set forth in the Convention to organize the governmental apparatus, and organize all structures of public authority in general, in such a way so as to be able to legally ensure the free and full exercise of human rights.8 11. Furthermore, the State acknowledgment of the international responsibility set forth in the present case should translate into prompt and effective compliance with the orders given by the Tribunal in the form of reparation measures. The State must be consistent with its acknowledgment and, therefore, with its international obligations. Therefore, it must provide redress for the victims that is proportional to the damage caused, as well as 5 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 70. 6 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín, supra note 5, para. 51. Cf. Case of the "White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 173; Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of August 27, 2010, Considering Clause 10, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 18, 2010, Considering Clause 21. 8 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 28, 2010, Considering Clause 10, and Case of Ivcher Bronstein, supra note 7, Considering Clause 10.