that the right to effective judicial protection is not an absolute and unconditional right and that this right is not violated merely because of a ruling against the claims of the parties. It argued that, had been any indolence on the part of the State, it would never have executed the arrest warrants issued against the material authors, let alone accomplished the extradition of one of them. B. General considerations of the Court 153. The obligation to investigate human rights violations is among the positive measures that States should adopt to guarantee the rights enshrined in the Convention. The Court has held that in order fulfill their obligation to guarantee rights, States should not only prevent, but also investigate violations of the human rights recognized in this instrument, such as those alleged in this case.249 154. The Court has repeatedly stated that the State Parties are required to provide effective judicial remedies for victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which can be implemented in compliance with the rules of due legal process (Article 8(1)), all of this within the States’ general obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention for all people under their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).250 155. 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 its own legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be unsuccessful, or as a simple measure responding to private interests.”251 The investigation must be “serious, impartial, [...] effective [...] and [be] designed to determine the truth and to pursue, capture, prosecute and eventually punish the authors.”252 This obligation remains “regardless of the agent to whom the violation may eventually be attributed, even private individuals, because if their acts are not properly investigated, they would, to a certain extent, be supported by the public authorities, which would involve the international responsibility of the State.”253 156. Similarly, the Court has stated that “the right to effective legal protection requires that the judges direct the proceeding in such a way as to avoid undue delays and obstructions that lead to impunity, thus frustrating due judicial protection of human rights,” and that “the judges who are in charge of directing the proceeding have the duty to direct and channel the judicial proceeding with the aim of not sacrificing justice and due legal process in favor of formalism and impunity,” which otherwise “leads to a violation of the international obligation of the State to prevent and protect human rights and it abridges the right of the victim and the next of kin to know the truth of what happened, for all those responsible to be identified and punished and to obtain the attendant reparations.”254 157. Bearing in mind both the facts outlined and the case law cited, it is appropriate for the Court, within the framework of its jurisdiction and functions, to determine whether or 249 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, paras. 166 and 176 and Case of González Medina and Family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C, No. 240, para. 127. 250 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 91 and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C, No. 236. para. 105. 251 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra, para. 177 and Case of Castillo González et al., supra, para. 151. 252 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 Castillo González et al., supra, para. 151. 253 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra, para. 177 and Case of Castillo González et al., supra, para. 151. 254 Cf. 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 Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 93. 47