obligation to investigate any report or justified reason to believe that torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment has been committed. 206. Furthermore, the Court has observed that this obligation to investigate remains in effect “whatsoever the identity of the agent to whom the violation may eventually be attributed, even private individuals, because, if their acts are not investigated seriously, they would, to a certain extent, be supported by the public authorities, which would involve the international responsibility of the State. 244 207. The Court also recalls that, based on the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, States are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law. 245 The Court has also indicated that, from Article 8 of the Convention, it is evident that the victims of human rights violations, or their family, must have ample possibilities of being heard and acting in the respective proceedings, both to try and clarify the facts and to punish those responsible, as well as to seek due reparation. 246 208. In keeping with this Court’s case law, the family of the victims have the right to, and the States have the obligation to ensure, an effective investigation into what happened to the latter by the State authorities; that a trial be held against those allegedly responsible for the unlawful acts; that the pertinent punishments be imposed, as appropriate, and that the damage that the family has suffered be repaired. 247 In addition, the Court reiterates that, in cases of forced disappearance, the purpose of which includes the prevention of the exercise of the pertinent legal remedies and procedural guarantees, if the victim himself cannot accede to the available remedies, it is essential that the family or other next of kin can accede to prompt and effective judicial remedies or procedures as a means of determining the victim’s whereabouts or state of health, or to identify the authority who ordered or carried out the deprivation of liberty. 248 209. In addition, in cases of forced disappearance, the investigation will have certain specific connotations that arise from the nature and complexity of the act investigated; in other words, the investigation must include taking all the necessary measures to determine the victim’s fate and whereabouts. 249 The Court has already clarified that the obligation to investigate facts of this nature subsists while the uncertainty remains about the final fate of the disappeared person, because the right of the victim’s family to know his fate and, if applicable, the location of his remains, represents a justified expectation that the State must satisfy with all the means available to it. 250 244 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 177, and also cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 177. 245 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 91, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, supra note 67, para. 105. 246 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 227, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 178. 247 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 130, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 179. 248 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 150, para. 64, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina, supra note 52, para. 114. 249 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 239, para. 80, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 129. 250 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 181, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 51, para. 129. 67