72 275. As the Court has indicated repeatedly, the duty to investigate is a duty of means, and not of results, and must assumed by the state as a legal obligation of its own, and not as a mere formality 365 preordained to be ineffective. In that vein, the investigation should be carried out with due diligence, in 366 367 an effective, serious, and impartial manner , and within a reasonable time. The Inter-American Court has also established that “domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole and the duty of the international tribunal is to find out if all proceedings were carried out in compliance with international 368 provisions,” given that the right to effective judicial protection therefore “requires that the judges direct the proceeding in such a way as to avoid undue delays and obstructions that lead to impunity, thus 369 frustrating due judicial protection of human rights.” 276. The IACHR has considered it proven that the alleged victims filed at least five criminal complaints for the purpose of having those responsible for the attacks on their territories and natural resources investigated and punished: (i) criminal complaint filed December 20, 2006, before the Attorney General of the Nation for the crimes of illicit association to engage in criminal conduct, usurpation, harm to property, illicit enrichment, ecological crime, and all others that result from the illegal occupation of the lands of the Comarca; (ii) complaint filed January 16, 2007, by the General Caciques of the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí with the Specialized Unit on Crimes against the Environment of the Technical Judicial Police, for crime against the environment; (iii) complaint filed on February 1, 2007, by the Corporación de Abogados Indígenas de Panamá, in representation of the Kuna Congress of Madungandí for crime against the environment; (iv) complaint filed January 30, 2007, by Héctor Huertas, attorney for the Kuna Comarca, with the Technical Judicial Police of the District of Chepo; and (v) complaint filed August 16, 2011, by Tito Jiménez, administrative sahila of the community of Tabardi, for the invasion and illegal logging in the Kuna Comarca of Madungandí. 277. Regarding the first complaint, the IACHR was not informed of actions taken to investigate effectively the alleged facts and establish the corresponding responsibilities; instead, the State itself informed that it did not have a record of the complaint. According to the information available to the IACHR, the two subsequent complaints were joined in a single proceeding, which has been before the th Office of the 11 Prosecutor of the First Judicial Circuit of Panama since February 2007. As of that date, various proceedings took place which concluded with the issuance of Prosecturorial Review No. 151, on May 29, 2008, which requests the provisional stay of the investigation. As regards the fourth complaint filed, according to the evidence in the record before the IACHR, it culminated with the temporary dismissal of the case issued on December 27, 2007, by the Judge of the Tenth Criminal Circuit of the First Judicial Circuit of the Province of Panamá. As for the fifth complaint, the IACHR has no information other than that it was filed and that certain measures were taken, yet it has not been informed, to date, of the existence of further proceedings, or of a definitive decision in the matter. 278. As regards the administrative penalizing procedures pursued for the protection of the natural resources located in indigenous territories, the IACHR has found that the Kuna of Madungandí 365 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 131; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 120. 366 I/A Court H.R. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 101; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Brothers Gómez Paquiyauri v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paras. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 130. 367 I/A Court H.R. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163. Para. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 368 369 I/A Court H.R. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 142. I/A Court H.R. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 210. I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para.115.