183. When examining cases involving gross human rights violations, 182 the Court has indicated that “the obligation to make reparation is an inherent duty of the State, so that, even though the victims or their next of kin must have extensive opportunities to seek fair compensation, this duty cannot rest exclusively on their procedural initiative or on the contribution of probative elements by private individuals.” 183 This must be understood bearing in mind that, in this type of case, the reparation owed involves the State’s obligation to investigate ex officio the violations that have been committed 184 (supra para. 122). In accordance with the foregoing, in the respective cases, there is a relationship between the obligation to investigate, the possibility of access to adequate reparation, and the rights of procedural activity of the victims,” and that “the State’s responsibility for failing to redress the consequences of the violations in this case is not annulled or reduced by the fact that the victims’ next of kin have not tried to use [certain] civil or administrative mechanisms” indicated by the State (Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, paras. 94 and 122). Similarly, the Court had previously had the occasion to rule on the connection between the rights established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention and access to measures of reparation (Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 227; Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 130; Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 59; Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paras. 186 and 187; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits reparations and costs, supra, paras. 63 and 64, and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 147). 182 Among the acts that constitute “gross human rights violations, [the Court has referred to] torture, summary, extralegal or arbitrary execution, and forced disappearance, all of them prohibited because they violate non-derogable rights recognized by international human rights law” (Cf. Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 171). It has expressed similar concepts in the following decisions: Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, paras. 207 and 208; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 225; Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 224, para. 117, and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of July 5, 2011, paras. 29 and 30). 183 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 209; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 340. Similarly: Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, paras. 117 and 122, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 400. 184 In this regard, the Committee against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has “underscore[d] the important relationship between States parties’ fulfillment of their obligations under articles 12 and 13 and their obligation under article 14. […] Full redress cannot be obtained if the obligations under articles 12 and 13 are not guaranteed.” Committee against Torture. General Comment No. 3 (2012). Implementation of Article 14 by the States parties Doc. CAT/C/GC/3. Distr. General 13 December 2012, para. 23. (The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment indicates as follows: “Article 12. Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction. Article 13. Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to, and to have his case promptly and impartially examined by, its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given. Article 14. 1. Each State Party shall ensure in its legal system that the victim of an act of torture obtains redress and has an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation, including the means for as full rehabilitation as possible. In the event of the death of the victim as a result of an act of torture, his dependents shall be entitled to compensation. 2. Nothing in this article shall affect any right of the victim or other persons to compensation which may exist under national law.”) In addition, it is worth citing the consideration of the International Commission of Jurists, which stated that “[v]ictims of human rights violations have the right to know the truth about the circumstances in which the violations took place. As a component of the duty to provide reparation, States must hold criminally responsible perpetrators of gross violations, in particular of those constituting crimes under international law, and such accountability may not be abridged by immunities, amnesties or statutes of limitations.” Declaration of the International Commission of Jurists on Access to Justice and Right to a Remedy in international human rights systems. Adopted in Geneva on 12 December 2012, Article 7. 57