the Convention on Forced Disappearance alleged by the Commission in the application (supra para. 3), the Court will now address the relevant non-disputed facts in order to later rule on the human rights violations committed by the State. A. Non-disputed facts. 110. The State recognized that the detention and disappearance of Mr. Torres Millacura by State agents required authorities to make every effort to carry out an immediate search, making all urgent and necessary queries. However, this did not take place despite the demands of the mother, siblings, and friends of the victim starting in the initial hours of his disappearance. The State failed to duly investigate the circumstances of the incident in those initial moments, as the complaint of Mrs. Millacura Llaipén was formally received 10 days after the first time she went to the First Precinct of Comodoro Rivadavia to inquire as to the whereabouts of her son. 108 The State did not promptly and effectively seek the evidence that would've allowed for the identification of those responsible, even though it had information provided by the relatives of the victim, his friends, and his acquaintances. The police officers who were initially assigned to the investigation into Mr. Torres’s disappearance were the ones accused of having committed it. The State also recognized that the Comodoro Rivadavia investigative judge in charge of the investigation when it was launched delayed the investigation into the case; that the Daily Police Log of the First Precinct was tampered with, and that several witnesses were "in one way or another" threatened by the same police personnel accused of having committed Mr. Torres Millacura’s disappearance. In addition, State authorities caused delays in taking evidentiary measures and collecting evidence, as well as in generally building the case, given that as of the date on which it was denounced, they have taken more than four years to hand down a judgment in the lower court. Additionally, Argentina recognized that investigations pursued by the State’s judicial branch showed signs of manipulation in the collection of evidence, obstruction of justice, and procedural delay.” B. Considerations of the Court. 111. For a better understanding of the case, the Court will address the actions taken by provincial and federal authorities separately. The Court will also analyze the administrative actions registered in the case file, particularly those of the police. In order to do so, the Court will refer only to the main actions within the corresponding case files. 112. The Tribunal has already indicated that the obligation to investigate, bring to trial, and, where appropriate, punish those responsible for human rights violations is one of the positive measures that States must adopt in order to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention, 109 in keeping with Article 1(1) thereof. This duty is an obligation of means and not ends that must be assumed by the State as its own juridical duty and not a simple formality condemned beforehand to failure, nor as a process with merely private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims and their relatives, or on the provision of evidentiary elements from private parties. 110 108 Cf. Complaint filed by Mrs. María Leontina Millacura Llaipén on October 14, 2003 before the First Precinct of Comodoro Rivadavia (case file of annexes to the application, tome X, folios 7199 to 7203). 109 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 167; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 175, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 184. 110 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 177; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. V. México, supra note 110, para. 175, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 184. 35