39 213. The Court has indicated that “as a result of the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the States are obliged to provide effective judicial recourses to the victims of human 169 rights violations that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law.” 214. As for the rights of the family members of the victims of human rights violations to obtain justice and reparation, the Court has said: From Article 8 of the Convention it is evident that the victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin should have substantial possibilities to be heard and to act in the respective 170 proceedings, both to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation. 215. Along the same lines, the Court has indicated that the family members of victims have the right, and the States the obligation, for what has happened to them to be effectively investigated by the authorities of the State; for a trial to go forward against those allegedly responsible for these crimes; and, as the case may be, for the pertinent sanctions to be imposed, and for reparation to be made for the 171 damages that those family members have suffered. According to the foregoing, the state authorities, once they are aware of a human rights violation, in particular of the rights to life, humane treatment, and 172 personal liberty , have the duty to initiate, sua sponte and without delay, a serious, impartial, and 173 174 effective investigation, which should be carried out in a reasonable time. 216. Regarding the content of the duty to investigate with due diligence, the Inter-American Court has indicated that it implies that the inquiries should be conducted by all legal means available and 175 should be geared to determining the truth. Along the same lines, the Court has indicated that the State has the duty to ensure that everything necessary is done to learn the truth of what happened and to 176 177 punish those responsible , involving every state institution. The Court has also said that the 169 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 124; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163, para. 145; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 381; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 106. 170 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 102; I/A Court H.R., “The Streetchildren Case” (Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 227; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005.Series C No. 120, para. 63. 171 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 103; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 172 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 100. 173 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 101; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Brothers Gómez Paquiyauri v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paras. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 130. 174 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163, para. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 175 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 101. 176 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163, para. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 177 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 130; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 120; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 66.