83. It should be recalled that the obligation to act, ex officio, in cases such as this one, means that as soon as the State authorities are aware of the facts, they must initiate immediately a serious, impartial and effective investigation by all available legal means aimed at determining the truth and at the pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of those responsible.108 This obligation to investigate is required “whosoever the agent to whom the violation may eventually be attributed, even private individuals, because, if their acts are not investigated seriously, such acts would, to a certain extent, be assisted by the public authorities, which would entail the State’s international responsibility.” 109 84. In this context, it is worth noting that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results. Despite this, the investigation must be assumed by the State as its inherent legal obligation and not as a mere formality predestined to be unsuccessful.110 During the investigations, omissions in following up on logical lines of investigation must be avoided.111 85. In light of the foregoing, and considering the arguments presented by the Commission and the parties, the Court must determine whether the actions undertaken by the State to discover the whereabouts of Mr. Palma Mendoza, as well as to investigate, prosecute and, as appropriate, punish those responsible for his deprivation of liberty and subsequent death, satisfied the right of his next of kin to have access to justice and to know what happened to Mr. Palma Mendoza. Both aspects are closely interrelated, and usually have a reciprocal impact. 2.2 Applications for habeas corpus filed in this case 86. Before analyzing this aspect, it should be noted that, with regard to the measures taken in the search for Mr. Palma Mendoza, the case has special characteristics as regards the two applications for habeas corpus that were filed. 87. The Commission and the representatives argued the State’s supposed failure to comply, to the detriment of Mr. Palma’s next of kin, with its obligation consisting in providing them with a real possibility of filing a legal remedy that would be simple, prompt and effective against acts that violated the Convention, and which would have allowed the required judicial protection to be obtained. The Commission also considered that, since the processing of this type of remedy was not assigned to a judicial authority, the State failed to comply with Article 2 of the treaty (supra para. 67). Neither the Commission nor the representatives identified Mr. Palma as a presumed victim (supra paras. 1 and 3 and footnote 1), or allege a hypothetical violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention. 88. The Court notes that, according to the facts of the case (supra paras. 34 and 27), even in the hypothesis that it could be inferred that, when the applications for habeas corpus 108 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143, and Case of Pacheco Teruel v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 128. 109 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 177, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 206. 110 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 177, and Case of Pacheco Teruel v. Honduras, para. 241. 111 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, paras. 88 and 105, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 232. 28