responsible. This obligation is of particular relevance based on the seriousness of the crimes committed and the nature of the rights breached99. 143. In the same sense, the Court has indicated that the victims and their next of kin have the right, and the States have the obligation, to have what happened to them be effectively investigated by the State authorities; to have the alleged responsible for these crimes be prosecuted; where appropriate, the pertinent sanctions be imposed on them, and the damages and losses that said family members have suffered be repaired 100 . According to the foregoing, the state authorities, once they become aware of a human rights violation, in particular the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty101, they have the duty to initiate ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation 102 , which must be carried out within a reasonable time103. In the words of the Commission: The judicial investigation must be undertaken in good faith, diligently, exhaustively, and impartially, and must be oriented to exploring all possible lines of investigation that allow the identification of the perpetrators of the crime, for their subsequent prosecution and punishment 104. 144. Regarding the content of the duty to investigate “with due diligence,” the Inter-American Court has indicated that it implies that the inquiries must be carried out by all available legal means and must be aimed at determining the truth105. Along the same lines, the Court has indicated that the State has the duty to ensure that everything necessary is carried out to find out the truth of what happened and to punish those possibly responsible106, involving all State institutions107. The IACHR recalls that the obligation to investigate and punish any act that implies a violation of the rights protected by the Convention requires that not only the material authors of the acts that violate human rights be punished, but also the intellectual authors of such violations 108. The Court has also said that the authorities must adopt reasonable measures to secure the necessary evidential material to carry out the investigation109. I/A Court H.R., Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 167; I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 105; I/A Court H.R., Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 230 to 232. 100 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, para. 103; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 101 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. 100. 102 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, para. 101; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para.146; 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. 130. 103 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 104 IACHR, Report No. 37/00, Case 11.481, Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero y Galdámez, El Salvador, April 13, 2000, para. 80. 105 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, para. 101. 106 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 107 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. 130; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 120; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 66. 108 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L /V/ II.124. Doc. 5 rev. 1, March 7, 2006, para. 109. 109 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, para. 122. 99 28