64 309. Subsequently, in court orders handed down on July 2 and February 29, the judge presiding over the cases decided to close the investigations into cases Nos. 615 and 616, based on the prosecution’s observations; the judge did not order any additional evidence in the case. 310. The Inter-American Commission observes that the investigating prosecutor and the judge presiding over the case did little to actively go after and get at the real causes of the events denounced. Both appeared to have believed that the case could not go forward unless the victims identified their assailants; they failed to produce any evidence to show that the injuries sustained were the result of a fight. The Commission therefore considers that the means the State used to investigate the facts of these two cases could not be deemed to be serious, diligent and effective. Furthermore, given the fact that at the time they made their statements Lucas Matías Mendoza and Claudio David Núñez were inmates in the prisons in the Federal Penitentiary System, it would have been reasonable to assume that they would be afraid to finger any of the guards who were their custodians at the time. 311. In the Commission’s view, the State cannot justify its failure to comply with its duty to investigate allegations of torture on the grounds that the victims did not identify their assailants by name. The Argentine authorities were derelict in their duty to spare no effort to investigate these facts. And there is no information to suggest that measures were taken to ensure that the victims could make their statements in safety. It was the duty of the investigating authorities to exhaust every possible avenue to determine what transpired, including the fact that the victims were unwilling to supply the requested information because they were afraid. Had this been done, the State might have been able to order the measures necessary to eliminate any danger to which the victims might expose themselves as a result of their complaints and, in short, clear away any obstacles to continuing the investigation. 312. In the Abella case, which also involved the Argentine State, the Commission pointed out that the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible for human rights violations is one of means and not ends: “in cases such as the present, in which individuals are deprived of their freedom, confined in an enclosed space and controlled exclusively by agents of the State, any defense alleging the difficulty or impossibility of establishing the identity of those responsible should be strictly and rigorously scrutinized. Even though this obligation is a means, in such cases it is the State which has control over all the 207 probative means to clarify the facts.” 313. The Commission finds that the inference of the observations made by the prosecutor, which the judge in the case then relied upon, is that they did not investigate the facts either diligently or effectively. The Commission therefore concludes that the State violated, to the detriment of Claudio David Núñez and Lucas Matías Mendoza, articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) thereof. The Commission also finds that the State violated articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish torture to the detriment of the very same persons. H. Right to personal integrity (Article 5(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof) regarding the victims’ next of kin 314. Finally, the Commission recalls that the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court is that 208 “the next of kin of the victims of human rights violations may, in turn, be victims.” Paragraph 13, subparagraph l) of this report, lists the names of the persons who, in the petitioners’ view, were affected by the events in this case. 207 208 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella, Argentina, November 18, 1997, para. 393. I/A Court H.R.. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 101; I/A Court H.R.. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 160; I/A Court H.R.. Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 105; I/A Court H.R.. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 175; and I/A Court H.R.. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 59.