39 designed to determine the truth and to pursue, capture, prosecute and eventually punish all the masterminds and perpetrators of the facts, particularly when State agents are or may be involved.116 It is pertinent to emphasize that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means, and not of results. However, it must be undertaken by the State as a legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.117 145. In the instant case, the State has argued that the next of kin of Heliodoro Portugal did not file a complaint or private action in order to intervene directly in the development of the criminal proceedings. However, the Court finds it pertinent to repeat that the investigation into human rights violations, such as those alleged in the instant case, must be conducted ex officio, as the Panamanian Code of Criminal Procedure indicates (supra para. 143), so that it cannot be considered a mere step taken by private interests, that depends on the procedural initiative of the victim or his next of kin or on the private offer of probative elements.118 146. Moreover, the Court has referred to the right of the next of kin of alleged victims to know what happened and to know who was responsible for the respective facts.119 The next of kin of the victims also have the right, and the State has the obligation to ensure, that the facts are investigated effectively by the State authorities, that criminal proceedings are filed against those responsible for the unlawful facts, and that, if applicable, pertinent sanctions are imposed on the latter, and the damage suffered by the said next of kin is repaired.120 147. In light of the above, the Court observes that 38 years have elapsed since the alleged disappearance of Heliodoro Portugal and 18 years since the State accepted the competence of the Court, without the next of kin being able to know the truth about what happened or who was responsible. 148. The reasonableness of this delay must be examined in accordance with the “reasonable time” mentioned in Article 8(1) of the Convention, which should be assessed in relation to the total duration of the proceedings until the final judgment is delivered.121 The Court has also indicated that the right of access to justice implies that the settlement of the dispute should be produced within a reasonable time,122 because a prolonged delay can constitute, in itself, a violation of the right to a fair trial.123 116 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Interpretation of the judgment on Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 9, 2005. Series C No. 131, para. 170; Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 101, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 17, para. 123. 117 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 177; Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 100, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 18, para. 131. 118 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 177; Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 22, para. 62, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 17, para. 120. 119 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 181; Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 102, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 17, para. 1155. 120 Cf. Bulacio v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 103, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 17, para. 115. 121 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 22, para. 71; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 56, and López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 129. 122 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 22, para. 73; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 59, and Case of López Álvarez, supra note 121, para. 128. 123 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145; Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 59, and Case of López Álvarez, supra note 121, para. 128.