B.1. Considerations on due diligence and logical lines of investigation 370. The Court has established that the obligation to ensure the rights contained in the Convention (Article 1(1)) includes the legal obligation “to prevent, reasonably, human rights violations, and to investigate, thoroughly and with the means available, any violations that have been committed within the sphere of its jurisdiction in order to identify those responsible, impose the pertinent sanctions [on them], and make adequate reparation to the victim.” The most important point is to clarify “whether a specific violation […] has occurred with the support or the tolerance of the public authorities or whether the latter have acted so that the violation has been committed despite any prevention, or with impunity.”616 The obligation to investigate must be complied with diligently in order to avoid impunity and the repetition of this type of event.617 371. Although the Court has indicated that the obligation to investigate is one of means, rather than of results, this does not mean that the investigation can be undertaken as “a simple formality preordained to be ineffective,” or as a mere action by private interests, which depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or on the provision of probative elements by private individuals.618 It is the responsibility of the State authorities to conduct a diligent, impartial and effective investigation, using all available legal means, aimed at discovering the truth and the eventual prosecution of the authors of the acts and their punishment, as appropriate, especially in a case such as this in which State agents are involved.619 372. As regards the obligation to investigate with due diligence, this Court has indicated that the organ investigating an alleged human rights violation must use all available means to carry out, within a reasonable time, all those actions and inquiries that are necessary in order to try and obtain the desired result.620 This obligation of due diligence acquires particular intensity and importance in relation to the severity of the crimes committed 621 and the nature of the rights harmed.622 In this regard, all “necessary measures [must be taken] to envision the systematic patterns that allowed the perpetration of gross human rights violations.”623 373. The Court understands that due diligence in the proceedings based on the events of this case required them to be conducted taking into account, among other elements, the complexity of the events, the context in which they occurred, and the patterns that explain their perpetration, avoiding omissions in the gathering of evidence and in following up on logical lines of investigation.624 Thus, the analysis of these circumstances is made based on: (a) the criminal 616 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 173, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 47. 617 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 319, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 156. 618 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, para. 177, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 248. 619 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, para. 143, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations, para. 157. 620 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 80, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 220. 621 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 156, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, para. 230. 622 Cf. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, para. 230, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 157. 623 Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 156. 624 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 158, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 194. 120