7 such a way that the States Parties can ensure the free and full exercise of human rights from the juridical standpoint.14 17. That in the case of serious violations of human rights, such as those declared in the Judgment of this case, “an ex officio, without further delay, serious, impartial and effective investigation is a fundamental and conditioning element for the protection of certain rights that are affected and annulled by such situations, such as the right to personal liberty, humane treatment and life.”15 In line with this, the Court has declared that an investigation shall not start “as a mere formality bound to be unsuccessful right from the beginning”16. On the contrary, it “shall have a meaning and be carried out by the State as its juridical duty and not simply to manage private interests, depending on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin or the private presentation of evidence, without the public authorities looking for the truth effectively. This appreciation is valid independent of the agent to which the violation may be attributed, even to private individuals”17. Likewise, the Court has stated that an investigation shall be carried out “following all the legal means available”18 and within a reasonable time.19 18. That the obligation to investigate shall not be carried out in any manner; it shall be carried out following the standards established by the international rules and jurisprudence, which define them as prompt, exhaustive, impartial and independent investigations.20 19. That the lack of justice is one of the primary reasons why victims resort to the InterAmerican System. Similarly, the order to try and punish criminals and discover the truth of the facts is one of the essential decisions included in the judgments of the Court. This entails a moral redress for the victims; it allows for overcoming the violations emotionally; it reestablishes social relations; it contributes to avoid the repetition of the facts; it helps to eliminate the power that the criminals may have; and it means that justice applies the consequences under the law, punishing those who deserve to be punished and repairing those who deserve reparation. 20. That the Court has pointed out that “any trial that is completed and fulfills its role is the clearest signal that violations of human rights are not tolerated, it contributes to the 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merit. Judgment of July 29, 1988. C Series No. 4, para. 166; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 12, considering clause 24, and Case of Tiu Tojín, supra note 12, para. 69. 15 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre V. Colombia. Merit, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. C Series No. 140, para. 145; Case of Anzualdo Castro V. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merit, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. C Series No. 202, para. 65, and Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. C Series No. 195, para. 298. 16 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 14, para. 177; Case of Garibaldi V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merit, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009, para. 113, and Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 15, para. 123. 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 14, para. 177; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. V. Guatemala. Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2009, considering clause 16, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 12, considering clause 28. 18 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 14, para. 174; Case of Garibaldi, supra note 16, para. 114, and Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 15, para. 179. 19 Cf. Case of Baldeón García V. Peru. Merit, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. C Series No. 147, para. 199; Case of Garibaldi, supra note 16, para. 170, and Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 15, para. 156. 20 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 12, considering clause 30.