58 275. For its part, the Inter-American Commission has written the following with regard to the States’ obligation to conduct a serious investigation: [T]he fact that no one has been convicted in the case or that, despite the efforts made, it was impossible to establish the facts does not constitute a failure to fulfill the obligation to investigate. However, in order to establish in a convincing and credible manner that this result was not the product of a mechanical implementation of certain procedural formalities without the State genuinely seeking the truth, the State must 189 show that it carried out an immediate, exhaustive and impartial investigation. 276. The Court has written that the duty to investigate is one of means and is not breached merely because the investigation does not produce a satisfactory result. Nevertheless, it must be 190 undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective or as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of 191 proof. 277. The facts that the IACHR has established show that the State launched two investigations as a result of the death of Ricardo David Videla Fernández: one criminal investigation and one disciplinary inquiry. 278. In the case of the criminal investigation, the Commission observes that a number of measures were taken, which included statements taken from inmates and prison staff. As a result of those statements, the Prosecutor’s Office in charge of the case was able to corroborate that Ricardo David Videla Fernández was on psychiatric medication, that he had broken a bar in the cell in which he had been previously held and that he had conveyed to more one than one prison guard that he intended to take his life. Based on that information, the Prosecutor’s Office ordered the investigations closed as he believed he had proof that the victim had died by his own hand and that the moment he was found hanging, the authorities had done everything they could to save him. 279. The foregoing suggests that the investigation was aimed at determining whether Ricardo David Videla Fernández had committed suicide and whether the prison authorities had reacted appropriately on the day of his death, as soon as they learned of what had happened. The investigation did not look into any possible blame for the omissions described in the preceding section given the inhumane conditions under which the victim was being held and the obvious deterioration in his health. Nor were any inquiries conducted to ascertain why the prison authorities failed to react to the victim’s announcement that he would take his own life. 192 280. The Commission believes these were logical lines of investigation that might reasonably have been pursued to establish any possible blame in the death of someone who was in the custody of the State. This became even more apparent when the statements taken by the Prosecutor’s Office uncovered serious evidence that Ricardo David Videla’s death might have been avoided if authorities had reacted to his cries for help and to the complaints of the Secretariat for Human Rights’ Prison Policy Monitoring Commission. 281. The Commission notes also that the preceding observations apply with equal force to the disciplinary inquiry, which was ultimately closed when no official was charged in the criminal investigation. 189 IACHR, Report No. 33/04, Case 11.634, Merits, Jailton Neri Fonseca, Brazil, March 11, 2004, para. 97. 190 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; 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. 131; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 120. 191 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 120. 192 See also: I/A Court H.R. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 106: “It is vital that the complexity of the matter, the context and the circumstances in which it occurred and the patterns that explain its commission must be taken into account when carrying out due diligence in the investigative procedures.”