the violation of the same rights of his parents owing to “all the acts and omissions committed by the State during the investigation process.” They indicated that “the judicial authorities did not conduct a serious and effective investigation aimed at determining the truth and at the pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of the perpetrators” and, therefore, they “failed to comply with their obligation of due diligence in the criminal investigation in this case.” In addition, the representatives considered that the State had failed to comply with the guarantee of a reasonable time owing to the more than 22 years that had passed since the report of Mr. Gómez Virula’s disappearance and his death. They added that the State had not presented any justification based on the complexity of the matter, the procedural activity of the interested party, or the conduct of the judicial authorities. 63. The State argued that the information contained in the report of Mr. Gómez Virula’s disappearance was “extremely inconsistent” and that this inconsistency introduced an element of complexity into the matter. It indicated that neither the members of Mr. Gómez Virula’s family, nor the representatives, UNSITRAGUA or any labor union or human rights defense organization “subsequently provided relevant and appropriate information that could lead to identifying and individualizing the presumed masterminds and perpetrators of Mr. Gómez Virula’s disappearance and death.” The State also argued that Article 25(1) had not been violated because, according to new documents provided by the State, “following the report made by the members of Mr. Gómez Virula’s family, the corresponding investigation process had been opened.” B. Considerations of the Court 64. The Court has repeatedly indicated that States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which must be substantiated in keeping with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all of this under the general obligation of those States to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).106 65. The obligation to investigate is an obligation of means rather than of results that must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof.107 The investigation must be serious, objective and effective and be addressed at determining the truth and the pursuit, capture and eventual prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators. 108 In addition, the obligation to investigate remains whosoever the agents to whom the violation may eventually be attributed, even if they are private individuals because, if their acts are not investigated seriously, those individuals are aided in a sense by the public authorities, thereby engaging the international responsibility of the State.109 66. Based on the foregoing, the Court will examine the due diligence in the investigation, and the time this took, in order to determine whether the State is responsible for the violation 106 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 267. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 175. 107 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127, and Case of Ruiz Fuentes et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 10, 2019. Series C No. 384, para. 175. 108 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 151. 109 18