64 made progress, with the laws now in force and the creation of several agencies, such as the INACIF, which have allowed measures to be taken in a scientific and technical manner (infra para. 267). 181. The Court also recalls that, during the proceedings before the Commission, Guatemala acknowledged the lack of due diligence in the investigation conducted into the death of María Isabel Veliz Franco based on the following facts: failure to perform some forensic tests on the corpse relating to the recovery of the corpse; the delay in the investigation owing to the jurisdictional dispute, and failure to establish an effective precautionary measure to ensure the presence of a persons suspected of María Isabel’s murder (supra para. 19). 182. Based on the foregoing, and considering the arguments of the parties and the Commission, the Court must examine whether or not the alleged irregularities in the investigation underway for the events that occurred to María Isabel constitute a violation of the obligations derived from rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 24 and 1(1) of this instrument, and to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. 183. The Court reiterates that the obligation to investigate human rights violations is one of the positive measures that the State must take to ensure the rights recognized in the Convention.257 The obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results. However, it must be assumed by the State as an inherent legal obligation and not as a simple formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a step taken by private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their family or upon their offer of probative elements.258 In light of this obligation, once the State authorities become aware of an incident, they should open a serious, impartial and effective investigation ex officio and immediately.259 This investigation should be conducted using all legal means available and be designed to determine the truth. The State’s obligation to investigate must be fulfilled diligently in order to avoid impunity and a repetition of this type of act. Thus, the Court recalls that impunity encourages the repetition of human rights violations. 260 The Court has also noted that this obligation persists “whosoever the agent to whom the violation may eventually be attributed, even private persons, because, if their acts are not genuinely investigated, they would, to some extent, be aided by the public authorities, which would involve the international responsibility of the State.”261 184. The Court has also indicated that it is clear from Article 8 of the Convention that the victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin, should have extensive possibilities of being heard and acting in the respective proceedings, both in order to clarify the facts and the punishment of those responsible, and to seek satisfactory redress. 262 The Court has also established that the obligation to investigate, and the corresponding right of the presumed victims or their next of kin is evident not only from the treaty-based norms of international law that are binding for the States parties, but also arise from domestic laws concerning the duty to investigation ex officio certain unlawful conducts, and from norms that allow the 257 153. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, paras. 166 and 176, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 258 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 178. 259 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paras. 219, 222 and 223, and Case of J., supra, para. 342. 260 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra, para. 319; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra, para. 289, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012 Series C No. 258, para. 132. 261 262 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 155. Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Merits, supra, para. 227, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 155.