elucidate “whether a specific violation […] has occurred with the support or tolerance of the public authorities, or whether the latter have acted so that the violation has been committed without any attempt at prevention or with impunity.”223 The obligation to investigate must be complied with diligently in order to avoid impunity and the repetition of this type of act.224 157. Although the Court has established that the obligation to investigate is one of means and not of results, this does not mean, however, that the investigation may be undertaken “as mere formality, predestined to be ineffective”225 or as a mere measure taken by private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or on the contribution of probative elements by private interests.226 It is the responsibility of the State authorities to conduct a serious, impartial and effective investigation, using all the available legal means, designed to determine the truth and to pursue, capture, prosecute and eventually punish the authors of the acts, especially in a case such as this one, in which State agents are involved.227 158. With regard to the military criminal jurisdiction, the Court reiterates its consistent case law228 on the lack of competence of this jurisdiction to prosecute human rights violations and the restrictive and exceptional scope that it should have in the States that still retain it. This Court has established that, owing to the right harmed, the said jurisdiction is not competent to investigate and, as appropriate, prosecute and punish the authors of human rights violations, and that only members of the Armed Forces on active duty can be tried by the military justice system for the perpetration of crimes or misdemeanors that, by their nature, impair rights inherent in the military system.229 223 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 173, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 47. 224 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 319, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 203. 225 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 248. 226 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 177, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 248. 227 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 143, and González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 204. 228 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, paras. 116, 117, 125 and 126; Case of Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, paras. 112 to 114; Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, paras. 51, 52 and 53; Case of 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, paras. 165, 166, 167, 173 and 174; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, paras. 141 to 145; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 202; Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, paras. 139 and 143; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, paras. 189 and 193; Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Retén de Catia) v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, paras. 53, 54 and 108; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 142; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, para. 200; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 105; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 66; Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, paras. 118 to 120; Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, paras. 108 to 110; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, paras. 272 and 273; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 176; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 160; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, paras. 197 to 199, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 240. 229 Furthermore, on numerous occasions the Court has indicated that “[w]hen military justice assumes competence in a matter that should be examined by ordinary justice, the right to an ordinary judge is violated and, a fortiori, due process of law,” and this, in turn, is closely related to the right of access to justice itself. Cf. inter alia, Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 128; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, para. 197, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia, para. 240. ‐ 47 ‐