violations.168 Said remedies must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law. 169 Similarly, it has stated that the right of access to justice must guarantee, within a reasonable time, the right of alleged victims or their relatives to learn the truth about what happened and ensure that those responsible are investigated, tried and, if applicable, punished. 170 102. Both the Commission and the Court have established in their consistent case law that the obligation 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 preordained to be unsuccessful, or as a simple action responding to private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their relatives, or on the offer of evidence by private individuals.171 The investigation must be serious, impartial and effective, and must be designed to determine the truth and to pursue, capture, prosecute and eventually punish the perpetrators. 172 103. The Commission recalls that these obligations also apply in cases where violations may be attributed to private individuals, “because if their acts are not properly investigated, they would, to a certain extent, be supported by the public authorities, which would involve the international responsibility of the State.”173 In particular, the Commission considers that, in accordance with Article 1.1 of the American Convention, States have the obligation to investigate possible acts of sexual violence. 104. In cases of violence against women, the general obligations of States Parties, as Nicaragua, established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention are complemented and reinforced with the obligations pursuant to the Convention of Belém do Pará. 174 Article 7.b of said Convention specifically obliges States Parties to apply due diligence to prevent, investigate and impose penalties for violence against women. Said obligation is to be activated from the moment the State becomes aware of an alleged incident such as rape.175 105. The Commission has emphasized that, according to article 9 of the Convention of Belem do Para, States must pay special attention to the needs and rights of victims who are girls who, as women, belong to a vulnerable group.176 Likewise, the European Court has maintained that in cases of violence against children, States have the positive obligation to carry out investigations in order to clarify the facts. 177 106. As such, it is particularly important that the authorities in charge of the investigation conduct it in a resolute and effective manner, taking into account society’s obligation to reject violence against women and the State’s obligation to eliminate it and secure the victims’ trust in the State institutions 168 Inter-American Court. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, par. 199. 169 Inter-American Court. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, par. 237. 170 Inter-American Court. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, par. 199. 171 Inter-American Court. Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, par. 192. 172 Inter-American Court. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, par. 127. 173 Inter-American Court. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, par. 200. 174 Inter-American Court. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, par. 239. 175 Inter-American Court. Case of Rosendo Cantú and other v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, par. 103. 176 IACHR, Report 170/11, Case 12.578, Merits, María Isabel Véliz Franco et al., Guatemala, November 3, 2011, par. 82. 177 ECHR, M. and M. v. Croatia. Judgment of September 3, 2015, par. 136.