Likewise, ... the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin, to have everything necessary done to uncover the truth of the events and to punish those responsible. 206 93. Thus, the right to the truth “is subsumed in the right of the victim or his next of kin to obtain clarification of the events that violated human rights and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent organs of the State, through the investigation and prosecution that are established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.”207 While the obligation of the State is one of means, not of results, that “does not mean ... that the investigation can be undertaken as a mere formality condemned in advance to be fruitless.”208 94. Indeed, that obligation “must ... be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government.”209 Thus, the State should ensure that “[e]ach 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.”210 The case law also clearly states: “In light of this obligation, once the authorities have knowledge of the event, they should initiate a serious, impartial and effective investigation, ex officio and without delay. This investigation should be undertaken utilizing all the legal means available and should be oriented toward the determination of the truth.”211 Accordingly, the failure to carry out a timely investigation and acts of obstruction of justice, hindrances, or problems of non-cooperation with the authorities that have hampered or are hampering clarification of the case constitute a violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection. 95. The IACHR recalls that the the obligation to investigate and punish every act that entails a violation of the rights protected by the Convention requires that not only the direct perpetrators of human rights violations be punished, but also the masterminds.212 In addition, it is also necessary to keep in mind that, in relation to cases of forced disappearance of persons, the Court has considered that the right of access to justice includes the obligation that the investigation endeavor to determine the fate or whereabouts of the victim.213 96. Also connected with the right to the truth and, in this particular case, subsumed in the right of access to justice,214 is the duty of the State to respect the right of victims to seek and receive information. Is important to note that the case law has consistently held that State authorities cannot resort to mechanisms such as official secret or confidentiality of the information, or reasons of public interest or national security, to refuse to supply the information necessary for investigating human rights violations. 215 Moreover, that classification cannot depend exclusively on a State body whose members are deemed responsible for committing the illegal act.216 I/A Court H.R., Las Dos Erres Massacre Judgment, pars. 104-105. See also I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C. No. 1. par. 91; I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C. No. 196 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Kawas Fernández Judgment"), pars. 110 and 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C. No. 100. par. 114; and I/A Court H.R., Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment, par. 115. 207 I/A Court H.R., Barrios Altos Case v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of March 14, 2001, Series C. No. 75. par. 48. 208 I/A Court H.R., Kawas Fernández Judgment, par. 101; I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 12, 2008, Series C. No. 186. par. 144; I/A Court H.R., Valle Jaramillo Judgment, par. 100. 209 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 177. 210 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 10, 2007, Series C. No. 167. par. 131. 211 I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al v. El Salvador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C. No. 168. par. 101. 212 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, March 7, 2006, par. 109; IACHR, Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, December 31, 2011, par. 237. 213 I/A Court H.R., Radilla Pacheco Judgment, par. 143, 191; I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 181. 214 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of February 24, 2011, Series C. No. 221. par. 243 and footnote 301. 215 I/A Court H.R., Tiu Tojín Judgment, par. 77; I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2003, Series C. No. 101 (hereinafter “I/A Court H.R., Myrna Mack Judgment”), par. 180. 216 I/A Court H.R., Myrna Mack Judgment, par. 181. 206 25