laws that support it and the reasons for its application in this case, taking into account that, at least until 2002, various authorities failed to comply with the judgments of the domestic courts.” In any case, the Commission “regret[ted] that the State had merely indicated that such actions are prescribed, when the said prescription is a result of Peru’s prolonged failure to comply with this measure of reparation.” 10. This Court has indicated that the obligation to investigate human rights violations is one of the positive measures that States Parties must adopt to ensure the rights recognized by the Convention.6 Although the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, the State must assume it as an inherent legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective or as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or upon their offer of proof.7 11. In response to the State’s argument that the order of November 24, 2009, was “the first time the Court has alluded” to investigative measures, other than criminal ones, the Court underlines that this measure was ordered in a broad sense, indicating that the State must conduct “the corresponding investigations” and apply the “pertinent sanctions” to those responsible for failing to abide by the judgments delivered by the Peruvian courts during the hearings on the applications for protective measures filed by the victims. Thus, the Court did not limit these investigations to those of a criminal nature and, in the said order, required the State to submit information on both the criminal investigations, and “the steps it has taken to conduct a thorough investigation other than the one corresponding to the criminal jurisdiction.“8 12. In addition, the Court recalls that, unless there is an explicit indication restricting the said the obligation to criminal investigations, the Court has determined that the States “must undertake, seriously, all necessary measures to identify, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish all the perpetrators and participants in the facts” that violate the Convention, “for the criminal and any other effects that may result from investigating [them].”9 In that regard, “as a means of combating impunity,” the States must “investigate the officials accused of irregularities through the competent public institutions and, following due process of law, apply the corresponding administrative, disciplinary or criminal sanctions to those found responsible.”10 a.1. Regarding the criminal investigations 13. The Court considers it necessary to recall that, in the order on monitoring compliance with judgment of November 24, 2009 (supra having seen paragraph 3), it verified that several criminal proceedings against those presumably responsible for the violations declared in the judgment originated from complaints filed by the victims themselves, prior to the delivery of the judgment.11 In addition, in this order, the Court 6 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 166 and 167, and Case of Contreras et al v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 127. 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 6, para. 177, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 224, para. 87. 8 Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 24, 2009, sixteenth considering paragraph. 9 Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010 Series C No. 218, para. 270. 10 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 460. 11 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 8, twelfth considering paragraph. 4