24 infringed and the seriousness of the crimes committed. 119 The Court has emphasized the State’s duty to investigate attacks against personal integrity,120 as well as against life,121 including extrajudicial executions or massacres.122 The duty to investigate violations of rights set out in the Convention may, in turn, arise from the norms of domestic law that the State has adopted. In this case, it comes from domestic judgments that under the criminal law of Guatemala actions were taken to “safeguard,” as ”legal rights,” those of “life” and “personal integrity.”123 Therefore, there is no doubt that pursuant to the Convention and to the domestic law, the State is obligated to investigate the deaths and the harm to personal integrity stemming from the incident on October 5, 1995. The right to access to justice of the alleged victims or their next of kin must ensure that, within a reasonable time, everything is done to learn the truth of what occurred and to investigate, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those eventually found responsible. 124 80. In order to assess whether the foregoing has been observed, the Court is empowered, under its supportive and ancillary jurisdiction, to examine the proceedings of a domestic investigation125 in its various aspects, among them the jurisdiction of the intervening authorities and the procedures followed. The latter, because it might contain flaws that might have affected the investigation as a whole in a way that “as time passes, the possibility of collecting and presenting evidence in order to clarify the facts and determine the corresponding responsibilities is unduly limited.”126 81. Due diligence requires the investigatory body to conduct all the measures and investigations necessary to achieve the result that is sought.127 In any event, it is not for the Court to determine the specific measures and investigations that are necessary. The Court has held that it is not its responsibility “to replace domestic jurisdiction by ordering concrete methods or forms for investigating and judging a specific case in order to obtain a better or more effective outcome; instead, its role is to find whether or not, in the steps actually taken domestically, the State's international obligations […] have been violated.”128 Therefore, “the procedures […] should be assessed overall”129 in order to determine whether in the specific case the flaws and omissions had a decisive impact on Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 166; Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 15, 2017. Series C No. 332, para. 141. 120 Cf. Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 358 and Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, supra, para. 210. 121 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177 and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 25, 2017. Series C No. 334, para. 132. 122 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143; Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v Guatemala, supra, para. 210 and Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 16, 2017. Series C No. 333, paras. 176 and 177. 123 Cf. Mixed Regional Chamber of the Court of Appeals of Cobán, Judgment of December 22, 2004, supra. 124 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114 and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 150. 125 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 222 and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 13, 2018. Series C No. 352., para. 117. 126 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 172 and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 117. 127 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 83 and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 461. 128 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80 and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 118. 129 Cf. Case of Castillo González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 27, 2012. Series C No. 256, para. 153 and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 118. 119