32 Convention to every person subject to its jurisdiction.95 Since it is related to specific rights, this guarantee obligation can be complied with in different ways depending on the right that the State has the obligation to guarantee and the particular characteristics of the case.96 112. The obligation to investigate human rights violations is one of the positive measures that States must adopt to guarantee the rights embodied in the Convention.97 The Court has maintained that, to comply with this guarantee, the State must not only prevent, but also investigate violations of the human rights embodied in this instrument, such as those alleged in the instant case, as well as trying to re-establish the violated right when possible and, if applicable, to repair the damage produced by the human rights violations.98 113. It is pertinent to underscore that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results. However, the State should assume it as an inherent juridical right and not as a mere formality predestined to be ineffective,99 or simply as a measure responding to special interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin or on the private contribution of probative elements.100 114. In light of this obligation, in investigations into a violent death, as in the instant case, as soon as the State authorities are aware of the act, they should initiate ex officio and without delay a genuine, impartial and effective investigation.101 This investigation should be conducted by all legal means available and be designed to discover the truth. 115. This Court has specified the guiding principles that must be observed when investigating a violent death. According to the Inter-American Court’s case law, the State authorities who conduct an investigation of this type should try, at least, inter alia: (a) to identify the victim; (b) to collect and preserve the probative material related to the death in order to assist any potential criminal investigation of those responsible; (c) to identify possible witness and obtain their testimony in relation to the death that is being investigated; (d) to determine the cause, manner, place and time of death, as well as to identify any pattern or practice that may have caused the death, and (e) to distinguish between natural death, accidental death, suicide and murder. It is also necessary to investigate the scene of the crime exhaustively and ensure that autopsies and analyses of the human remains are conducted rigorously by competent professionals using the most appropriate procedures.102 95 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 19, para. 91; Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 14, paras. 74 and 110, and Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 97. 96 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 94, para. 73; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 141, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 95, para. 97. 97 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 48, paras. 166 and 176; Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 30, para. 146, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 95, para. 98. 98 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 48, para. 166; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 194, and Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 78. 99 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra nota 48, para. 177; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 195, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 14, para. 101. 100 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 48, para. 177; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 195, and Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 146. 101 Cf. The Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 146; Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 14, para. 101, and Case of Perozo et al., supra note 14, para. 298. 102 Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127; Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 14, para. 102, and Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 121. Also, according to the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal, Arbitrary and