131. The Court recalls that since the prohibition of forced disappearance is a jus cogens
norm, the correlative obligation to investigate and, as appropriate, to prosecute and punish
those responsible, is particularly forceful and important given the seriousness of the crimes
committed and the nature of the rights impaired 196 (supra para. 96).
132. The Court has established that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means
and not of results, and it must be assumed by the State as an inherent legal obligation, not
as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or merely as an action taken by private
interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or on
the offer of evidence by private individuals. 197 The State's obligation to investigate must be
fulfilled diligently in order to prevent impunity and the recurrence of such events. In this
regard, the Court recalls that impunity encourages the repetition of the violation of human
rights. 198
133. According to the Court’s case law, the victims’ next of kin have the right, and the
States have the obligation, to ensure that what happened to them is investigated effectively
by the State authorities; that proceedings are undertaken against the presumed
perpetrators of the illegal acts, and that, as appropriate, the pertinent punishments are
imposed on them, and that reparation is made for the harm suffered by the next of kin. 199
In addition, the Court reiterates that, in the case of a forced disappearance, where one of
the objectives is to prevent the exercise of legal remedies and the pertinent procedural
guarantees, if the victim is unable to access the available remedies, it is essential that the
next of kin or other persons who are close to them are able to access prompt and effective
legal remedies or procedures in order to determine the victim’s whereabouts or health, and
to identify the authority that ordered or implemented the deprivation of liberty. 200
134. Furthermore, the investigation will have certain specific connotations arising from the
nature and complexity of the phenomenon under investigation. In other words, the
investigation must also include the implementation of all the actions required to determine
the victim’s fate and to discover his or her whereabouts. 201 The Court has already stated
that the obligation to investigate facts of this nature persists while the uncertainty about the
final fate of the disappeared person remains, because the right of the victim’s family to
know his or her fate and, if applicable, where the remains are located, represents a just
expectation that the State must satisfy with the means available to it. 202
135. The Court has emphasized that the legal rights involved in the investigation of a
forced disappearance oblige the State to redouble its efforts regarding the measures that
196
Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, paras. 84, 128 and 131, and Case of the Río Negro
Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 227.
197
Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of the Massacres of El
Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 248..
198
Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, para. 319, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote
and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 244.
199
Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte, supra, para. 130, and Case of González Medina and family members v.
Dominican Republic, supra, para. 208.
200
Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 64, and Case of González Medina and family members v.
Dominican Republic, supra, para. 208.
201
Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 80, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala,
supra, para. 224.
202
Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 181, and Case of González Medina and
family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 209.
47