63 145. Though the contentious jurisdiction of the Court was recognized by the State on December 10, 1998, the Court considers that the period of ten months and eleven days from such date to October 21, 1999, during which no measures were taken to improve the precarious health care conditions at the Casa de Reposo Guararapes, is not compatible with the duty of the State to regulate health care services which are provided to the individuals under the jurisdiction thereof, as irregularities had been reported since May 15, 1996. 146. The State has international liability in the instant case due to its failure to take care and prevent the breach of the right to life and humane treatment, as well as of its duty to regulate and monitor health care services, which are special duties derived from its obligation to guarantee the rights enshrined in Articles 4 and 5 of the American Convention. 3. The duty to investigate 147. The duty to guarantee the human rights enshrined in the Convention is not limited to the existence of a legal system designed to allow the fulfillment of such duty, but also entails the need to adopt government policies which ensure the effective guarantee for the free and full exercise of human rights.122 In this regard, one of the conditions to effectively guarantee the right to life and personal integrity is the compliance with the duty to investigate the violation of such rights, which is derived from Article 1(1) of the Convention, in conjunction with the substantive right which should be preserved, protected or guaranteed. 123 148. In view of the foregoing, the State has the duty to commence ex officio and without delay, a serious, fair, and effective investigation which is not undertaken as a mere formality condemned in advance to be fruitless. 124 Such investigation should be carried out with all available means and should be designed to establish the truth and to investigate, prosecute, and punish all the persons who are liable for the facts, particularly when State officials are or may be involved. 125 149. In order to establish whether the duty to protect the rights to life and humane treatment by means of a serious investigation about the facts has been effectively complied with, it is necessary to examine the domestic proceedings instituted in order to elucidate the facts, which will be done in Chapter X of this Judgment. * 150. The foregoing considerations have led the Court to conclude that, due to its failure to comply with the duties of respect, prevention, and protection regarding the 122 Cf. Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 4, para. 167; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, para. 142. 123 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 92; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, para. 142; and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 21, para. 233. 124 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, paras. 92 and 93; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, para. 143; and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 21, paras. 219 and 223. 125 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 94; Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, para. 143; and Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 203.