those responsible.158 That obligation, which relates to means rather than to results, must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.159 110. As the established facts show, in this case multiple habeas corpus petitions were presented, a criminal investigation was opened, and a special inquiry procedure was ordered. Bearing in mind that these processes went ahead simultaneously, the Commission will make a determination as to whether the three petitions constituted effective mechanisms for establishing the whereabouts of Ms. Gutiérrez, and if the criminal investigation and the special inquiry process were effective means to identify possible culprits and to impose the appropriate penalties. 111. For that purpose, taking into consideration the established facts and the submissions of the parties, the Commission will pronounce on: (i) due diligence initially and in the course of the ensuing proceedings; (ii) due diligence in pursuing logical lines of inquiry; and (iii) reasonableness of time in the investigation. i. Due diligence initially and in the course of the ensuing proceedings 112. The Court has held that the investigation should be undertaken utilizing all the legal means available160 and be undertaken with due diligence.161 The IACHR recalls that states have the obligation to act with all diligence from the very first stages of a proceeding.162 That is because the first investigative steps are key components for an appropriate development of the judicial investigation.163 Thus, the Court has found, "All these requirements, together with criteria of independence and impartiality also extend to the nonjudicial bodies responsible for the investigation prior to the judicial proceedings.”164 113. In particular, as this case concerns the disappearance of a woman in a specific context of violence against women, the Inter-American Court has stated that “in this context, an obligation of strict due diligence arises in regard to reports of missing women, with respect to search operations during the first hours and days. Since this obligation of means is more rigorous, it requires that exhaustive search activities be conducted. 165 In the words of the Court: [I]t is essential that police authorities, prosecutors and judicial officials take prompt immediate action by ordering, without delay, the necessary measures to determine the whereabouts of the victims or the place where they may have been retained. Adequate procedures should exist for reporting disappearances, which should result in an immediate 158 I/A Court H.R., Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Persons Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, par. 435, citing. Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, par. 199. 159 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 160 I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, par. 101. 161 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, par. 146; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par. 130. 162 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 121. 163 I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, par. 167. IACHR, Report No. 37/00, Case of 11.481, Merits Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez, El Salvador, April 13, 2000, par. 85. 164 133. I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par. 165 I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, par. 282. 23