A/HRC/18/25 effectively, promptly, thoroughly and impartially and, where appropriate, take action against those allegedly responsible in accordance with domestic and international law.20 9. According to the Updated Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity, impunity arises, inter alia, from a failure by States to meet their obligations to investigate violations of human rights and international humanitarian law.21 Principle 19 provides for States to undertake prompt, thorough, independent and impartial investigations of such violations.22 10. Moreover, the preamble to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court affirms the responsibility of all States to ensure justice for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, whether committed on their territory or against their nationals, stating that their effective prosecution must be ensured by measures at the national level and through international cooperation. It recalls that it is the duty of every State to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for international crimes. In this regard, article 17 of the Rome Statute, providing for the principle of complementarity, further reinforces the primary duty of States to investigate and prosecute international crimes. 11. Regional human rights instruments, including the American Convention on Human Rights (American Convention), the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention), and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter)23 provide for the obligation of States to investigate violations of human rights law. The obligation has also been repeatedly reaffirmed in the jurisprudence of the regional human rights bodies. 12. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights found, in the Velásquez Rodríguez case, that the obligation under article 1.1 of the American Convention to ensure the full enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognized by the Convention creates a positive legal duty on States to, inter alia, “use all means at its disposal to carry out a serious investigation of violations committed within its jurisdiction.”24 The Court has also held that the legal duty exists as a procedural requirement of substantive rights contained in the American Convention, such as the right to life and the right to humane treatment.25 13. The European Court of Human Rights found, in the case of Aksoy v. Turkey, that the requirement for States to ensure an “effective remedy,” as provided for in article 13 of the European Convention, entails a “thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible [for the human rights violation], and 20 21 22 23 24 25 6 General Assembly resolution 60/147, para. 3(b); see also para. 4, which provides as follows: “States have the duty to investigate and, if there is sufficient evidence, the duty to submit to prosecution the person allegedly responsible for the violations and, if found guilty, the duty to punish him or her.” E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1, principle 1. See also E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, annex 1, principles 1 and 5. See American Convention, art. 1.1; European Convention, arts. 1 and 13; African Charter, art. 1; see also Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, arts. 1, 6 and 8; and Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons , arts. 1 and 3. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, case of Velásquez Rodríguez, judgment of July 29 1988, paras. 174-177. The Court has affirmed the findings in this case in multiple instances, including in the case of Godínez-Cruz v. Honduras, judgment of January 20 1989, paras. 184-188; case of González et al. v. Mexico, judgment of November 16 2009, paras. 245-247, 287-291. See for example, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, case of González et al. v. Mexico, para. 292; case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras, judgment of April 3 2009, paras. 75-77, 100-102, 107, 139; case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru, judgment of July 10 2007, paras. 100-102, 124, 140; case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, judgment of January 31 2006, paras. 120, 142-143, 145, 148.