measures.123 D. Obligation to investigate the facts that gave rise to the violations, and to identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible 124. The State acknowledged its responsibility for the violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection because it failed to investigate the facts of the case within a reasonable time and with due diligence, and did not take the necessary measures to establish the respective criminal, administrative or disciplinary responsibilities after the dismissal declared by the domestic courts, which is why the facts have remained in impunity for almost eight years. 125. In the friendly settlement agreement, the State undertook to conduct an investigation, within a reasonable time not to exceed one year, by creating an independent commission in order investigate those responsible, by act or omission, for the events that led to the death of the 107 individuals deprived of liberty (hereinafter “Investigation Commission”). This Investigation Commission will consist of seven people, experts in criminal investigations, coordinated by an ad hoc prosecutor from the Public Prosecution Service, and it will make recommendations to the competent institutions or entities responsible for taking the corresponding action. In addition, the next of kin will have the right to be informed during all stages of the investigation process. Under the timetable for the implementation of the agreement, the ad hoc prosecutor who will coordinate the Investigation Commission would be appointed on April 10, 2012, and the Commission would commence its work in June 2012. 126. The Court assesses positively the State’s willingness to clarify the facts of the case by creating the Investigation Commission. In this regard, the Court considers that the commission must be independent and have the necessary human and material resources to perform it duties properly. 127. However, in a case involving denial of justice such as this one, the State's obligation to ensure access to justice should not be understood fulfilled by the eventual creation and results of an investigation commission. Thus, the Court finds it pertinent to reiterate, as it has in other cases, that the “historical truth” documented in the reports of special commissions does not complete or replace the State's obligation to establish the legal truth through judicial proceedings.124 Therefore, even though the commission may contribute to establishing the facts, the State must comply with the obligation to investigate the facts that constituted the human rights violations declared in this judgment and, as appropriate, punish them, using the pertinent legal mechanisms. 128. Based on the above, this Court orders that the State must conduct a serious, impartial and effective investigation125 of the facts of this case in order to elucidate them, establish the truth and the corresponding criminal, administrative and/or disciplinary 123 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, paras. 127 and 132, and Case of González Medina and family, supra note 13, para. 204. 124 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154 para. 150, and Case of Contreras et al., supra note 18, para. 135. 125 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Interpretation of the judgment of merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 159 para. and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010 Series C No. 217, para. 65. 35