171. Indeed, the Court notes that, despite the severity of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ injuries when he was admitted to Roosevelt Hospital after his arrest, the State did not open any type of investigation, ex officio, to determine their origin. Moreover, it did not open any type of investigation when, on April 29, 1998, Mr. Ruiz Fuentes reported the facts before the Eighth Criminal Trial Judge, describing in detail the ill-treatment to which he alleged he had been subjected. 209 The Court also notes that, in the context of this statement, the defense lawyer expressly asked the judge to require an investigation of the reported facts because they constituted torture. 210 172. Furthermore, no investigation of any type was opened following the statements made by both Mr. Ruiz Fuentes and J.M.M.R on April 21, 1999, during the oral trial before the Sixth Criminal Sentencing Court,211 at which time Mr. Ruiz Fuentes even provided a series of x-rays that verified the serious injuries he had suffered. 212 The Court notes that, based solely on the statements of the police officers who intervened in the capture of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes, the Sixth Criminal Sentencing Court considered that their version was the valid one. 213 173. The Court also recalls that, in other cases, it has indicated that the obligation to investigate is increased by the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT that obligate the State “to take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction,” and also “to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.” In addition, according to Article 8 of that convention, the States Parties “shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case.” Also, “if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process.” Accordingly, on several occasions, the Court has considered that, when the duty to investigate acts of torture has not been complied with, this also entails a violation of those articles of the ICPPT.214 174. Consequently, the Court concludes that the lack of a prompt investigation into such serious facts reveals non-compliance with the State’s obligation to guarantee the right to personal integrity, and also a denial of justice that constitutes a violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and a failure to comply with the obligations assumed under Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes. b.4 Investigation of the death of Mr. Ruiz Fuentes 175. The Court has consistently indicated that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means rather than results that must be assumed by the State as its inherent legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a mere measure taken by private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their family members, or on their contribution of probative elements. In addition, the investigation must be serious, objective and effective and Cf. Statement made by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes before the Eighth Trial Judge for Drug-trafficking and Environmental Crimes on April 29, 1998 (evidence file, folios 8 to 13). 210 Cf. Statement made by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes before the Eighth Trial Judge for Drug-trafficking and Environmental Crimes on April 29, 1998 (evidence file, folio 12). 211 Cf. Record of hearing C-4-98. Statement of J.M.M.R. during the oral and public trial hearings before the Sixth Sentencing Court for Drug-trafficking and Environmental Crimes on April 21, 1999 (evidence file, folios 1134 to 1208). 212 Cf. Record of hearing C-4-98. Statement made by Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes during the oral and public trial hearings before the Sixth Sentencing Court for Drug-trafficking and Environmental Crimes on April 21, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1143). 213 Cf. Judgment delivered by the Sixth Sentencing Court for Drug-trafficking and Environmental Crimes of Guatemala on May 14, 1999 (evidence file, folios 7351 to 7363). 214 Cf. Case of Favela Nova Brasília v. Brazil, supra, para. 252, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 185. 209 41