118. The Inter-American Court has noted that the obligation to investigate persists, “irrespective of the agent to whom the violation may be eventually attributed, even individuals, since if the events are not investigated in depth, they would be, in some way, assisted by public authorities, which would entail international responsibility for the State.”126 In its judgment on the merits in the case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, the Court underscored that, according to the duty to guarantee rights: The State is obligated to investigate every situation involving a violation of the rights protected by the Convention. If the State apparatus acts in such a way that the violation goes unpunished and the victim's full enjoyment of such rights is not restored as soon as possible, the State has failed to comply with its duty to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights to the persons within its jurisdiction. The same is true when the State allows private persons or groups to act freely and with impunity to the detriment of the rights recognized by the Convention.127 119. Similarly, in the context of the duty to open an effective government investigation when individuals have lost their lives, the European Court of Human Rights has been held that “this obligation is not confined to cases where it has been established that the killing was caused by an agent of the State. Nor is it decisive whether members of the deceased’s family or others have lodged a formal complaint about the killing with the relevant investigatory authority.”128 120. In cases of violence against journalists and media workers, both the Court and the InterAmerican Commission have found that the failure to comply with the obligation to investigate acts of violence against a journalist may also entail a breach of the duty to guarantee the right to freedom of thought and expression.129 Indeed, in the reports on the merits issued in the cases of Héctor Félix Miranda (Mexico) and Víctor Manuel Oropeza (Mexico), the Commission addressed the violation of the right to freedom of expression with respect to the murder of journalists, even though it was not possible to establish the responsibility of State agents for the violation of the right to life.130 In these opinions, the IACHR established that the failure to conduct an exhaustive investigation that leads to criminal penalties against all persons responsible for the murder of a journalist is also a violation of the right to freedom of expression, because of the chilling effect impunity has on all of society. 121. The IACHR affirmed that this chilling effect can only be prevented “by swift action on the part of the State to punish all perpetrators, as is its duty under international and domestic law.”131 In that respect, it concluded that the murder of journalists was “an aggression against all citizens inclined to denounce arbitrary acts and abuses to society, aggravated by the impunity of [its] perpetrators.”132 126 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140. para.145; I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196. Para. 78. 127 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. para. 176. I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196. Para. 76. 128 Cfr. ECHR, Ergi v. Turkey, Judgment of 28.07.1998, Reports of Judgments, n. 81, paras. 85-86, ECHR, Akkoç v. Turkey, Judgment of 10 October 2000, paras. 77 to 99; ECHR, Kiliç v. Turkey, Judgment of 28 March 2000, paras. 78 to 83. 129 I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248. Para. 215. 130 IACHR. Report No. 50/99. Case 11.739. Héctor Félix Miranda (Mexico). April 13, 1999. Para. 52; IACHR. Report No. 130/99. Case No. 11.740. Víctor Manuel Oropeza (Mexico). November 19, 1999. Para. 58. 131 IACHR. Report No. 50/99. Case 11.739. Héctor Félix Miranda (Mexico). April 13, 1999. Para. 52; IACHR. Report No. 130/99. Case No. 11.740. Víctor Manuel Oropeza (Mexico). November 19, 1999. Para. 58. See also, IACHR. Report No. 136/10. Case 12.658. Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo and Family (Colombia). October 23, 2010. Para. 136; IACHR. 2010 Annual Report. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter II: 2010 Special Report on Freedom of Expression in Mexico. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 5. March 7, 2011. Para. 716. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248. Para. 211. 132 Case 11.739. Héctor Félix Miranda (Mexico). April 13, 1999. Para. 52; IACHR. Report No. 130/99. Case No. 11.740. Víctor Manuel Oropeza (Mexico). November 19, 1999. Para. 61.