B. Considerations of the Court 142. The Court has established that, pursuant to the American Convention, States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be implemented in keeping with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).221 It has also indicated that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the presumed victims or their next of kin that everything necessary is being done to discover the truth of what happened and to investigate, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those eventually found responsible.222 143. In its consistent case law, this Court has indicated that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which the State must assume as its legal duty and not as a simple formality preordained to be ineffective, or merely as a measure taken for private interests223 that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin or on the contribution of probative elements by private individuals.224 The investigation must be serious, impartial and effective, aimed at determining the truth and the pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of the perpetrators of the facts. 225 This obligation remains “whoever the agent to whom the violation may eventually be attributed, even private individuals because, if their acts are not investigated seriously, they would, to a certain extent, be aided by the public authorities, which would engage the international responsibility of the State.”226 Moreover, due diligence requires that the investigative agency takes all the steps and makes all the inquiries needed to obtain the desired result. Otherwise, the investigation is not effective in the terms of the Convention.227 144. The Court has also indicated that Article 8 of the Convention reveals that the victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin, must have broad possibilities of being heard and acting in the respective proceedings, in order both to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due redress. 228 In addition, the Court has established that the obligation to investigate and the corresponding right of the presumed victim or the next of kin is revealed not only from convention-based norms of international law that are peremptory for the States parties, but also arise from domestic law concerning the obligation to investigate, ex officio, certain wrongful acts, and the norms that allow victims or their next of kin to report or Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 2, 2015. Series C No. 300, para. 75. 222 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 75. 223 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 75. 224 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 75. 225 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 Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, para. 238. 226 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 238. 227 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 Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 238. 228 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 227, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 184. 221 52