violations (Article 25), 299 remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), 300all this within the general obligation of the States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons under their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). 301 Similarly, it has stated that the right of access to justice must guarantee, within a reasonable time, the right of alleged victims or their relatives to learn the truth about what happened and ensure that those responsible are investigated, tried and, if applicable, punished. 302 200. The Court has established in its consistent case law that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a mere formality preordained to be unsuccessful, or as a simple action responding to private interests 303 that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their relatives, or on the offer of evidence by private individuals. 304 The investigation must be serious, impartial and effective, and must be designed to determine the truth and to pursue, capture, prosecute and eventually punish the perpetrators. 305 This obligation remains “regardless of the agent to whom the violation may eventually be attributed, even private individuals, because if their acts are not properly investigated, they would, to a certain extent, be supported by the public authorities, which would involve the international responsibility of the State.” 306 Moreover, due diligence requires the investigating body to undertake all necessary actions and inquiries to achieve the desired result. Otherwise, the investigation is not effective under the terms of the Convention. 307 201. The Court notes that in this case, the investigations into the violent death of A.A. and the threats to family A remain in the hands of the Public Prosecution Service. On this point, the Court’s case law establishes that the guarantees recognized in Article 8(1) of the Convention do not apply solely to judicial proceedings. 308 In particular, regarding the actions of the authorities in charge of the investigations, the Court has established that, depending on the circumstances of the case, it may be necessary to analyze the procedures that relate to and constitute the grounds for judicial proceedings, particularly the investigative procedures, upon which the results of the opening and progress of these proceedings depend. 309 Of course, in such cases the analysis of the guarantees of Article 8(1) in the context of the actions of the Public Prosecution Service, mutatis mutandis is applied, as appropriate. 202. The Court further notes that the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman of Escuintla also conducted an investigation and reached its conclusions (supra paras. 121 and 122). In this regard, the Court has stated that the “historical truth” documented in special reports, or the tasks, activities and recommendations issued by special 299 Cf. Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, supra, para. 30. 300 Cf. Case Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 92, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, supra, para. 30. 301 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 91, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux V. Suriname, supra, para. 30. 302 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of Osorio Rivera and Family v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 200. 303 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of García and Relatives v. Guatemala, supra, para.132. 304 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case García and Relatives v. Guatemala, supra, para. 132. 305 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 García and Relatives v. Guatemala, supra, para. 135. 306 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Luna López v. Honduras, supra, para. 155. 307 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 83, and Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 62. 308 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 105, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C No. 234, para. 118. 309 Cf. Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 120, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 159. 60