Service and the “joint complaint,” whose purpose was to establish the inapplicability of the statute of limitations. The State also maintained that Mr. López had failed to demonstrate a sense of urgency with regard to the proceedings and exhibited a “passive” attitude throughout. It also stressed that Mr. López “agreed with the vast majority of the motions and appeals filed by the Public Prosecution Service.” Regarding the conduct of the judicial authorities, the State argued that the lengthy delays in the proceedings were due, in large measure, to the repeated motions, challenges and appeals filed by the Public Prosecution Service, the alleged victim and the accused. The different judges had handled the proceedings correctly and imposed penalties on the parties and their representatives when appropriate in order to move the proceedings forward. Finally, with regard to the impact on the legal situation of the plaintiff, the State reiterated that the length of the proceedings was justified given the recusals by the different judges and the many motions and appeals filed throughout the process. It added that Mr. López had been working as a police officer for more than 14 years, so, in this case, the passage of time “did not affect his employment situation to any serious or meaningful degree.” 108. Therefore, the State asked the Court to declare that it was not in breach of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, or Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. B. Considerations of the Court B.1 General considerations on due diligence in investigations of acts of torture 109. The Court has established in general terms that, under the American Convention, States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Art. 1(1)). 186 110. These remedies include the duty to investigate human rights violations. The investigation, as has been pointed out in other cases, must be serious, objective and effective, be aimed at determining the truth and seeking the prosecution, capture, and eventual trial and punishment of the perpetrators of the crimes. 187 The Court has also consistently noted that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a mere formality doomed to be ineffective. 188 111. In relation to the alleged commission of acts of torture in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention, this Court recalls that the duty to investigate is reinforced by the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, that oblige States to “take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction,” and to “prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of November 18, 2022. Series C No. 475, para. 92. 187 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sanchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2021. Series C No. 434, para. 67. 188 Cf. Case of Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 93. 186 33