32 129. It has also been proved before the Court that, as of September 5, 2005, more than 14 years after the murders, and more than four years after the next of kin’s complaint, the investigations into the case were reopened, and are still in the initial stages (supra para. 76).91 130. The Court recalls its consistent case law that, in cases such as this, compliance with the obligation to investigate must include the obligation to initiate, ex officio and immediately, a genuine, impartial and effective investigation,92 using all available legal means,93 and involving every State institution.94 131. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means, rather than results.95 However, this does not signify that the investigation can be undertaken as “a mere formality predestined to be ineffective.”96 Each act of the State that forms part of the investigative process, as well as the investigation as a whole, should have a specific purpose: the determination of the truth, and the investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the facts. 132. The Court has also stated that access to justice should ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin for every necessary measure to be taken to know the truth about what happened and to sanction those eventually found to be responsible.97 133. All these requirements, together with criteria of independence and impartiality also extend to the non-judicial bodies responsible for the investigation prior to the judicial proceedings, conducted to determine the circumstances of a death and the existence of sufficient evidence. In the absence of these requirements, the State cannot subsequently exercise effectively and efficiently its authority to bring charges and the courts cannot conduct the judicial proceedings that this type of violation calls for. 134. As can be seen from the above, Peru failed to investigate the circumstances and those responsible for the deaths of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz. The investigation initiated in 1989 was a mere formality conducted by the police and prosecution authorities, which made no progress and was closed, so that it can be considered inexistent. The Court notes that, in the body of evidence in the instant case, Regular Provincial Prosecutor of the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutors Office on December 2, 2005 (file of appendixes to the brief answering the application, appendix 6, pages 924 and 925). 91 Cf. Report No. 05-2005-2º FPSP-MP-FN issued by the Regular Provincial Prosecutor of the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutors Office on December 2, 2005 (file of appendixes to the brief answering the application, appendix 6, pages 926 to 928); and Report No. 03–2007–2º FPS–MP–FN issued by the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutors Office on February 20, 2007 (file of preliminary exception, merits, reparations and costs, page 857). 92 Cf. Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 146. Cf. also Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 54 para. 143; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, supra note 72, para. 79; and Case of Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil, supra note 13, para. 148. 93 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 54 para. 143; Case of Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil, supra note 13, para. 148; and Case of Baldeón-García v. Peru, supra note 6 para.94 94 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 54 para. 120; Case of “the Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra note 54, para. 232; and Case of Huilca-Tecse v. Peru. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 66. 95 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 54, para. 177; and Case of Baldeón-García v. Peru, supra note 6, para 93. 96 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 54, para. 177. Cf. also Case of the Miguel Castro -Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 255; Case of Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil, supra note 13, para. 148 and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra note 71, para. 296. 97 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para 146; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 382; Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay, supra note 6, para. 101.