131. The Court recalls that since the prohibition of forced disappearance is a jus cogens norm, the correlative obligation to investigate and, as appropriate, to prosecute and punish those responsible, is particularly forceful and important given the seriousness of the crimes committed and the nature of the rights impaired 196 (supra para. 96). 132. The Court has established that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, and it must be assumed by the State as an inherent legal obligation, not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or merely as an action taken by private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or on the offer of evidence by private individuals. 197 The State's obligation to investigate must be fulfilled diligently in order to prevent impunity and the recurrence of such events. In this regard, the Court recalls that impunity encourages the repetition of the violation of human rights. 198 133. According to the Court’s case law, the victims’ next of kin have the right, and the States have the obligation, to ensure that what happened to them is investigated effectively by the State authorities; that proceedings are undertaken against the presumed perpetrators of the illegal acts, and that, as appropriate, the pertinent punishments are imposed on them, and that reparation is made for the harm suffered by the next of kin. 199 In addition, the Court reiterates that, in the case of a forced disappearance, where one of the objectives is to prevent the exercise of legal remedies and the pertinent procedural guarantees, if the victim is unable to access the available remedies, it is essential that the next of kin or other persons who are close to them are able to access prompt and effective legal remedies or procedures in order to determine the victim’s whereabouts or health, and to identify the authority that ordered or implemented the deprivation of liberty. 200 134. Furthermore, the investigation will have certain specific connotations arising from the nature and complexity of the phenomenon under investigation. In other words, the investigation must also include the implementation of all the actions required to determine the victim’s fate and to discover his or her whereabouts. 201 The Court has already stated that the obligation to investigate facts of this nature persists while the uncertainty about the final fate of the disappeared person remains, because the right of the victim’s family to know his or her fate and, if applicable, where the remains are located, represents a just expectation that the State must satisfy with the means available to it. 202 135. The Court has emphasized that the legal rights involved in the investigation of a forced disappearance oblige the State to redouble its efforts regarding the measures that 196 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, paras. 84, 128 and 131, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 227. 197 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 248.. 198 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, supra, para. 319, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 244. 199 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte, supra, para. 130, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 208. 200 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra, para. 64, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 208. 201 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 80, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 224. 202 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 181, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 209. 47