8 accounts or credit cards as well as all the documentation that demonstrates that such actions are been carrying out (supra Having Seen clause 1). Moreover, during the private hearing held (supra Having Seen clause 10) the Inter-American Commission transmitted the message of "frustration and impotence for the lack of justice in the case at hand” that the next of kin of Nicholas Blake feel. In such order, the Commission let the State know some of the questionings regarding the compliance with the Judgments of the next of kin. 11. That, because of the requirements of the Inter-American Commission, the State requested a period of time to the Court in order to send information concerning the specific measures adopted to comply with the only aspect of the Judgment that is still pending compliance. The State undertook to submit such information within a term of thirty days. 12. That the advantage of the hearing held to monitor the aspect of the case that is still pending compliance, which is hereby represented by the good will and the cooperation shown by the parties, should be valued. In particular, the Court values the favorable availability of the State to handle the orders of the Inter-American Court and hopes that represents a positive contribution to the resolution of the instant case. 13. That, in monitoring the partial compliance with the Judgments delivered in the case at hand, the Court deems appropriate that the State informs the Court about the specific measures adopted to ensure the compliance with the only aspect of the Judgments still pending compliance (supra Having Seen clauses 1 and 2) and, as to the expressed commitment (supra Considering clause 11), it refers particularly to each of the questionings exposed by the Inter-American Commission during the private hearing (supra Considering clause 10) as well as the observations and recommendations submitted by the victim's next of kin in its brief of November 21, 2007 (supra Having Seen clause 9). To such end, the State should submit the corresponding documentation to support the measures adopted in the case at hand. 14. That the duty to investigate must be assumed by the State as its own juridical duty and not as a simple formality condemned beforehand to be fruitless, 9 or as a simple action of individual interests, which depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin or of the private contribution of evidentiary elements. 10 This investigation must be carried out through all legal means available and oriented to the determination of the truth and the investigation, persecution, capture, prosecution, and in its case, punishment of all those responsible for the facts, especially when state agents are or could be involved. 11 The Court has held that in Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 255; Case of Ximenes Lopes. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C Nº. 149, para. 148. 9 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 8, para. 177; Case of Penal Miguel Castro Castro, supra note 8, para. 255; Case of Goiburú et al. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 117. 10 11 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143; Case of the Rochela Massacre. Merits, Reparations, and Costs.