16 ...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 rights violations, and total defenselessness of victims and their relatives. (Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra 63, para. 173) 65. Consequently, the State has a duty to investigate the acts that resulted in violations of the American Convention in the present case, to identify and punish those responsible and to adopt the internal legal measures necessary to ensure compliance with this obligation. (Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention)(Loayza Tamayo Case, Reparations, supra 31, para. 171 and Suárez Rosero Case, Reparations, supra 31, para. 80). XI EXPENSES 66. In relation to expenses, the injured party stated that it was represented by attorneys Joanne Hoeper, Margarita Gutiérrez, A. James Vásquez-Aspiri, and Samuel Miller, of San Francisco, California, and by the International Human Rights Law Group of Washington D.C., who have assisted the family gratuitously or pro bono and have not received compensation for their professional services. Nevertheless, the injured party observed that the family had incurred expenses such as trips, translations, telephone calls, photocopies, and postal services. The Blake family requested, for this reason, the amount of US$22,802.12 (twenty-two thousand eight hundred and two dollars of the United States of America and twelve cents). 67. The Inter-American Commission adopted the calculation of expenses set forth by the injured party in its brief on reparations. It also requested that the Court order Guatemala to pay the expenses incurred by the injured party in the proceedings and motions before the Commission and the Court, based on that stated by the injured party in its brief. 68. Guatemala observed that the expenses claimed by the Blake family are not related to the State’s obligation to investigate, as set forth in the judgment on the merits, inasmuch as the Court ordered the reimbursement of “the expenses incurred by [the injured party] in their representations to the Guatemalan authorities in connection with this process;” and that from the facts proved it shows that the injured party conducted an investigation independent of the Guatemalan authorities, who were responsible for carrying out the judicial investigation. It added that, from the evidence put forth, it can not be deduced that the expenses correspond to those spent in actions before the public authorities, as set forth by the Court in operative paragraph four of the Judgment on the merits of this case. In light of the above, it requested that the Court reject the claims of the injured party and the Commission. 69. After examining the expenses for which the injured party requests reimbursement, the Court observes that they arise from trips to Guatemala to gather information relating to the processing of the case before the Commission; trips made by the attorneys for the Blake family for appearances before the Commission and the Court, including meals and lodging, and various expenses for translations, telephone calls, photocopies and correspondence, all of which were generated by the presentation of the case before the organs of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights.