67 184. The obligation to investigate human rights violations falls within the positive measures that States must adopt in order to ensure the rights recognized in the Convention216 and is an obligation of means rather than of results, which must be assumed by the State as legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective that depends upon the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or upon the production of evidence by private parties. 217 185. In regard to enforced disappearance and given that one of its objectives is to prevent the exercise of the appropriate legal remedies and procedural guarantees, if the victim itself cannot access the remedies available, it is fundamental that the next or kin or other people close to the person be able to access prompt and effective proceedings or judicial remedies as means to determine their whereabouts or state of health or to identify the authority that ordered the deprivation of liberty or made it effective. 218 186. Specifically, any time there is reason to suspect that a person has undergone an enforced disappearance, an investigation shall be initiated. 219 This obligation exists regardless of the filing of a complaint, since in cases of enforced disappearance international law and the general duty to guarantee, impose the obligation to investigate the case ex officio, without delay, and in a serious, impartial, and effective manner. 220 This investigation should be carried out in all available legal mediums and be aimed at obtaining the truth. This is a fundamental and conditioning element for the protection of certain rights affected by these situations, 221 which encompasses in any case, all state authorities, public officials, or individuals who have received news about acts regarding the enforced disappearance of persons, all of whom shall denounce them immediately. 222 187. Article 8 of the Convention establishes that the victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin, should have wide-ranging possibilities of being heard and taking part in the respective proceedings, both in order to ascertain the facts and punish those responsible, as well as to seek due reparation.                                                          216 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 20, para. 167; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 138; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 9, para. 175. 217 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 20, para. 177; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 138; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 9, para. 175. 218 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 75, para. 64; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 107, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 64. 219 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 74, para. 143; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 65, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 108. 220 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 146, para. 143; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 65, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 108. 221 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 146, para. 145; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 65, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 108. 222 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 75, para. 65; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 65.