the private sector.37 In light of this obligation, once the State authorities have knowledge of the facts, they must initiate, ex oficio and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation.38 This investigation must be carried out in all of the available legal venues and be aimed at determining the truth. 33. In addition, the obligation pursuant to international law to prosecute, and if criminal responsibility is determined, punish the perpetrators of human rights violations, stems from the obligation to guarantee rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. This obligation implies the obligation of States Parties to organize their governmental apparatus, and in general, all of the structures in which public power is manifested, in a way that assures individuals the free and full exercise of their human rights. 39 As a consequence of this obligation, the States must prevent, investigate, and punish all violations to the human rights enshrined in the Convention, and also, seek the reestablishment, if it is possible, of the violated right, and where applicable, the reparation of the harm produced given the violation of the human rights. 40 If the State’s apparatus functions in a way that assures the matter remains in impunity, and it does not restore, in as much as is possible, the victim’s rights, it can be ascertained that the State has not complied with the obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of those persons within its jurisdiction. 41 34. For its part, universal and regional bodies for the protection of human rights have ruled on the scope of the obligation of due diligence in the investigation of crimes related to acts of torture and the effects that this has on the analysis of the statute of limitations. 35. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights has noted that when a State official has been accused of crimes related to torture or cruel and inhumane treatment, it is of the highest importance, in what pertains to an effective remedy, that the criminal procedures which refer to crimes, such as torture, that imply serious violations of human rights not be obstructed by limitations such as the statute of limitations or allow amnesties in this regard. 42 37 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 36, para. 177; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. V. Mexico, supra note 36, para. 191, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. V. Mexico, supra note 36, para. 175. 38 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. V. Mexico, supra note 36, para. 175, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 25, para. 65. 39 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 36, para. 166; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brasil, supra note 30, para. 140, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 31, para. 189. 40 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. V. Honduras, supra note 36, para. 166; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 112, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brasil, supra note 30, para. 140. 41 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 36, para. 176; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 288, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brasil, supra note 30, para. 140. 42 Cfr. ECHR, Case of Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey. Judgment of November 2, 2004, para. 55. In this ruling, the European Court noted that: “…where a State agent has been charged with crimes involving torture or ill-treatment, it is of the utmost importance for the purposes of an “effective remedy” that 15