57 272. The Court has observed 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 rights 180 violations that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law.”” The Court has also written that: 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 181 proceedings, both to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation. 273. The Court has also held that the victims and their next of kin have the right to expect, and the States the obligation to ensure, that the events that transpired will be effectively investigated by State authorities; that proceedings will be filed against those allegedly responsible for the unlawful acts; and, if applicable, the pertinent penalties will be imposed, and the damages and injuries that the next of kin have 182 suffered will be redressed. Therefore, once state authorities learn of a human rights violation, especially 183 a violation of the rights to life, humane treatment and personal liberty, they have a duty to initiate, ex 184 officio and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation, which must be conducted within 185 a reasonable period of time. 274. As to the meaning of the duty to investigate “with due diligence,” the Inter-American Court has written that due diligence implies that the investigations are to be conducted by all legal means 186 available and should be geared to establish the truth. The Court has also written that the State has a duty to ensure that everything necessary is done to ascertain the truth of what happened and to punish 187 188 anyone responsible, and involving every State institution. 180 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. Preliminary Objections, 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. 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.). Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 106. 181 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 102; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 227; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 63. 182 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. 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. 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. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 183 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 100. 184 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. 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 Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 146; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 130. 185 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163, para. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 186 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 101. 187 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163, para. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 188 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. 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. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 120; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 66.