45 respect the rights established in the Convention and to guarantee their free and full exercise to the victim.97 126. Therefore, the Court considers that the State has not investigated effectively the facts that affected Maritza Urrutia and, consequently, has not identified the person or persons criminally responsible for the unlawful facts, so that they remain unpunished. In this respect, the Court has understood that impunity is the overall lack of investigation, tracing, capture, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention, and that the State is obliged to combat this situation by all available legal means. Impunity promotes the chronic repetition of the human rights violations and the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin.98 127. Without prejudice to the above, in this case it has been proved that Maritza Urrutia was tortured, a situation that imposes a special obligation on the State to investigate. In this respect, as indicated in the proven facts, the administrative and judicial authorities abstained from adopting any formal decision to initiate a criminal investigation of the alleged perpetration of the crime of torture, even thought the Resolution of the Guatemalan Ombudsman of October 6, 1992, concluded that, among other rights, the right of Maritza Urrutia to humane treatment had been violated (supra para. 58.21) and demanded from the Government “an effective investigation and a prompt clarification of the facts.” 128. Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture establishes expressly the State’s obligation to proceed, de officio, and immediately in cases such as this, regardless of the inactivity of the victim. In this respect, the Court has stated that “in proceedings on human rights violation, the State’s defense cannot rest on the impossibility of the plaintiff to produce evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of the State.”99 In the instant case, the State did not act in accordance with these provisions. 129. The fact that the State did not investigate the acts of torture effectively and allowed them to remain unpunished, means that it has omitted to take effective measures to avoid acts of this nature being repeated within its jurisdiction, disregarding the provisions of Article 6 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. 130. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and the obligations established in Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia García. XII ARTICLE 11 (RIGHT TO PRIVACY) 97 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 134; Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 64, para. 129; and Trujillo Oroza case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 109. 98 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 120; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, paras. 143 and 185; and Las Palmeras case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 53.a). 99 Cf. The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 12, para. 251; Gangaram Panday case. Judgment of November 21, 1994. Series C No. 16, para. 49; and Godínez Cruz case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 141.