Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, which states that intrusive vaginal and anal searches shall be prohibited by law, establishes standards very similar to those of the Mandela Rules. 635 461. This Court has established in its constant case law that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means and not of result, which must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a step taken by private interests 636 that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof. 637 The investigation must be serious, impartial and effective, and be aimed at determining the truth and ensuring the pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of the perpetrators of the acts. 638 Likewise, due diligence requires that the investigating body carry out all the actions and inquiries necessary to achieve the desired result. Otherwise, the investigation is not effective under the terms of the Convention. 639 462. In particular, in accordance with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the obligation to guarantee the rights recognized in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention entails the duty of the State to investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 640 The obligation to investigate is reinforced by the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, which require the States Parties “to take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdictions,” as well as “to prevent and punish […] other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Furthermore, under Article 8 of said Convention, “States Parties shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case. Likewise, if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process.” 463. In this specific case, the Court does not have sufficient evidence to prove that the mistreatment denounced actually occurred. The Court also notes that in final decision No. 010223-2006 of the Department of Administrative Procedures of the Ministry of Justice, issued on May 7, 2009, it was determined that the responsibility of the alleged offender could not be proven and therefore it was not appropriate to apply any sanction for the alleged acts committed against the inmates. This decision states that, “according to witnesses brought to the proceeding and based on evidence gathered in the administrative file, it does not appear that the person involved here had engaged in degrading, discriminatory and unequal treatment when searching the inmates of Area B, Cellblock D2, Dormitory 3 of [CAI] La Reforma.” 641 In this regard, this Court does not find arguments or evidence that demonstrate Cf. Matter of the Penitentiary Complex of Curado regarding Brazil. Provisional Measures. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of November 23, 2016, paras. 44 and 45, and United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rules 51 and 52; Principles and Best Practices on the Protection of Persons Deprived of Liberty in the Americas, Principle XXI. 636 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 238. 637 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 238. 638 Cf. 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 Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 238. 639 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, Para. 83, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 238. 640 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 147, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 239. 641 Final Decision No. 010-223-2006 of the Department of Administrative Procedures of the Ministry of Justice, of May 7, 2009, page 17. 635 140