98. This Court has indicated in its consistent case law that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as an inherent legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be illusory or as a mere effort on the part of private individuals. 192 The investigation must be serious, impartial and effective, and designed to determine the truth and to pursue, capture, prosecute and eventually punish the authors of the acts. 193 The said obligation remains “whosoever the agent who may eventually be attributed with the violation, even private individuals, because, if their acts are not investigated seriously, they would, to a certain extent, be aided by the public authorities, which would involve the international responsibility of the State.” 194 In addition, due diligence requires that the organ responsible for the investigation take all necessary measures and makes all necessary inquiries to obtain the results sought. Otherwise, the investigation is not effective in the terms of the Convention. 195 99. The Court has also indicated that “the right to effective judicial protection requires judges to direct the proceedings in a way that avoids undue delays and hindrances leading to impunity, thus thwarting the due judicial protection of human rights,” 196 and that “judges, as conductors of the proceedings, are obliged to direct and guide the judicial proceeding so as not to sacrifice justice and due process of law to formalism and impunity”; to the contrary, “there is a violation of the State’s international obligation to prevent violations and to protect human rights and an impairment of the right of the victim and of his next of kin to know the truth of what happened, that those responsible are identified and punished, and to obtain the corresponding reparations.” 197 100. The Court notes that, in the instant case, the criminal proceedings for the crime of murder were initiated before Criminal and Correctional Court No. 5 of La Plata, province of Buenos Aires, on August 29, 1994. When the investigations had been completed, only one person had been implicated, who was an agent of the Federal Police, and charges were brought against him for the crime of murder aggravated by malice (supra paras. 45 and 46). On November 11 and 12, 1996, the oral and public hearing was held before the First Court of the Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of La Plata, province of Buenos Aires. On November 15, 1996, this Chamber delivered a verdict and judgment acquitting the accused, considering, inter alia, that the evidence provided by the prosecution had not overcome reasonable doubt as regards the authorship of the crime, and returning the case file to the original court. The case file was subsequently forwarded to Transitional Court No. 2 of the La Plata Judicial Department, province of Buenos Aires. On December 17, 1998, case 5-10888-2 was registered in this court, identifying the individual who presumably accompanied the indicted federal police agent in the extrajudicial execution, as a participant, among other persons possibly involved in the murder. On December 28, 2006, 192 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Castillo González et al., supra, para. 151. 193 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, para. 121. 194 155. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 195 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 Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 62. 196 Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, supra, para. 115, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 93. 197 Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 211, and Case of the Las Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, paras. 120 and 125. 39