210. In brief, owing to the nature and seriousness of the facts, States are obliged to conduct an investigation with the above-mentioned characteristics and to ensure that the criminal responsibilities are determined by the competent judicial authorities, rigorously meeting the requirements of due process established in Article 8 of the American Convention. 251 211. The Court has also made it clear that, under the international jurisdiction, the parties and the subject of the dispute are, by definition, different from those of the domestic jurisdiction. 252 As it has indicated on other occasions, 253 when examining possible violations of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, the Court has powers, not to investigate and punish the individual conduct of the State’s agents, but to establish the international responsibility of the State based on the alleged violation of the said rights. 212. In the instant case, the State’s investigation of what happened to Mr. González Medina was entrusted to two extrajudicial committees or boards composed of members of the State’s security forces. In addition, in the criminal jurisdiction, an investigation was conducted that lasted seven years and six months and more than four years and nine months ago the investigation was reopened, and is still underway at this stage. These investigations have not determined what happened to Mr. González Medina 17 years ago, located his whereabouts, or determined any of those responsible. 213. To decide whether the Dominican Republic has complied with its obligation to investigate effectively and in keeping with the guarantees of due process, the Court must examine the domestic investigations, 254 conducted by the Investigating Court, the Review Chamber, and the Public Prosecution Service (supra paras. 115 to 123), as of the date on which the Dominican Republic accepted this Court’s jurisdiction, and verify whether they have been an effective means to guarantee the rights of Mr. González Medina as well as an effective remedy to ensure the rights of access to justice, truth and reparation of his family. D) Background: investigations conducted by the Police Board and the Joint Board 214. The Court observes that the first investigations conducted by the State into what happened to Mr. González Medina began seven days after his wife filed a complaint (supra paras. 102 and 108) and were conducted by a Police committee or board, established on the orders of the Head of the Police, and composed of two colonels and a lieutenant (supra para. 108). Three and a half years after the Police Board concluded its investigation a Joint Board of the Armed Forces and the National Police was set up to investigate what had happened to Mr. González Medina in response to a request of the President of the Republic (supra para. 111). This Joint Board was composed of members of State security entities 251 Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, supra note 236, para. 106, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 130. 252 Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 26, 1999. Series C No. 49, para. 47, and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 107. 253 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 181, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 56. 254 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 246, para. 222, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 181. 68