to investigate and punish human rights violations,273 an obligation that acquires particular importance given the seriousness of the crimes committed and the nature of the rights harmed.274 Accordingly, in this case, which relates to grave human rights violations committed in a context of massive and systematic violations, the obligation to investigate cannot be ignored or made conditional on domestic legal provisions or decisions actions of any kind.275 191. The Court recalls that, owing to the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the States are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations, which must be established in keeping with the rules of due process of law.276 In addition, the Court has indicated that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the presumed victims or their next of kin to know the truth about what happened and that those eventually found responsible are punished.277 192. Even though the Court has established that the obligation to investigate is one of means, rather than results, this does not mean that the investigation can be undertaken as “a simple formality predestined to be unsuccessful.”278 In this regard, the Court has established that “every State decision that is part of the investigative process, as well as the investigation as a whole, must be directed at a specific goal, the determination of the truth and the investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and, as appropriate, punishment of those responsible for the facts.”279 The investigation must be conducted using all available legal means and must include the responsibility of both the perpetrators and the masterminds, especially when State agents are or could be involved.280 193. In addition, this Court recalls that, in keeping with the right recognized in Article 8(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the States have the obligation to ensure the right of the victims or their next of kin to take part at all stages of the respective proceedings, so that they can make proposals, receive information, provide evidence, submit arguments and, in brief, assert their rights.281 This participation must be designed to ensure access to justice, knowledge of the truth of what happened, and the award of fair reparations.282 However, the effective search for the truth is the responsibility 273 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, para. 166, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 127. 274 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra, para. 157, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 127. 275 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 127. 276 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, supra, para. 91, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 207. 277 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 113, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 255. 278 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 129. 279 Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 131, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, para. 153. 280 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 204. 281 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 246, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 251. 282 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 233, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 251. 71