79 the proceedings (supra para. 50). Consequently, the Court finds the State’s argument attributing the duration of the proceedings to the fact that they are being processed under the criminal procedural norms of the previous system unacceptable. Furthermore, the State has not shown whether the reforms have been applied or in what way their alleged benefits have been reflected in these criminal proceedings; hence, it is not for the Court to assess the general scope and effects of the penal procedural reforms. The shortcomings of the criminal procedural system applied to the proceedings in this case can also be attributed to the State and do not exempt it from complying with its obligations under the American Convention. 116. It is therefore necessary to examine and determine whether these criminal proceedings have constituted an effective recourse to ensure the rights of access to justice, the truth about the facts, and reparation for the next of kin, or whether another type of recourse has existed for these effects. 117. The preceding chapter indicated the obligation of the States Parties to the American Convention to investigate acts that violate the rights recognized therein (deriving from their obligation to safeguard these rights), and also the required characteristics of the investigations in cases of extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances and other grave human rights violations (supra paras. 88 to 94). In addition, it must be repeated that this investigation should be conducted using all available legal means and directed at determining the truth and the pursuit, capture, prosecution and punishment of all the masterminds and perpetrators of the facts, particularly when State agents are or may be involved. During the investigation and judicial proceedings, the victims or their next of kin must have ample opportunity to take part and be heard, both in the elucidation of the facts and the punishment of those responsible, and in the quest for fair compensation, in accordance with domestic law and the American Convention. However, the investigation and the proceedings must have a purpose and be assumed by the State as its inherent legal obligation and not as the result of efforts made by private interests, which depend on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin or on the contribution of probative elements by the latter.84 118. The Court observes that, in the instant case, even though criminal proceedings could not be filed until after the fall of the dictatorial regime, the State has not shown any diligence in the official investigations, which, despite the nature of the facts, were not instituted de oficio, but rather as a result of complaints filed by the victims’ next of kin. In addition, there is no evidence of actions taken either in the context of the criminal proceedings, or using other mechanisms, to determine the whereabouts of the victims or to find their mortal remains. 119. Regarding the effectiveness of these criminal proceedings to determine the truth and pursue, capture, prosecute and punish all the masterminds and perpetrators of the facts, the Court recognizes that they were opened against the most senior members of the dictatorial Government, including the then Head of State, and the most senior officials in the Ministry of the Interior, the Military Intelligence Services, the Asunción Police and its Investigations Department, in addition to several former officers of the Asunción Police who occupied intermediate 84 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 287-289; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 5, paras. 143 to 146, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, paras. 137, 219, 223, 232 and 237.