38 or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process. 139. In the instant case, the State became aware of the alleged forced disappearance through the habeas corpus petitions filed by the next of kin of Arrom Suhurt and Martí Méndez, on January 19 and 23, 2002, respectively (supra paras. 64and 67). The judges who received the petitions issued official notices to the Ministry of the Interior and the National Police in order to require information on whether Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí were detained (supra paras. 65and 67). After receiving information that they were not detained, the habeas corpus petitions were denied, also taking into account that there was a pending arrest warrant against both of them (supra paras. 64and 68). 140. The Court recalls that this case did not happen in a context of systematic and generalized practice of forced disappearance, political persecution, or other human rights violations, nor was there any evidence to show that the alleged victims were in the custody of state agents before the alleged events occurred (supra para. 96). Therefore, once the information requested by the judges in charge of the habeas corpus petitions had been received, there were no reasonable grounds to suspect that Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez had been victims of a forced disappearance. On the other hand, the Court notes that in this case it is a public and notorious fact that on the same days that the State became aware of the disappearance of the alleged victims, it was already carrying out various search actions to determine their whereabouts in order to enforce their arrest warrant.218 It would be contradictory to consider that the state authorities were not carrying out search actions to determine the whereabouts of Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez. 141. Consequently, the State did not breach its obligation to initiate an investigation ex officio and without delay into the disappearance of Juan Arrom Suhurt and Anuncio Martí Méndez. Likewise, no violation of Article 25 of the Convention happened due to the alleged ineffectiveness of the habeas corpus presented. B.2 Due diligence in the investigations 142. The Court has consistently indicated that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and not as a simple formality preordained to be unsuccessful, or as a mere management of private interests, that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their relatives or on the contribution of evidence by private individuals.219 In addition, the investigation must be serious, objective and effective, and be oriented towards determining the truth and the pursuit, capture, and eventual prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators of the acts 220. 218 Note from the Diario Noticias, entitled “Three more kidnappers fall and 8 remain at large,” published on January 21, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 77 to 78); Note from the newspaper La Nación, entitled “Prosecutor claims that Arrom is a fugitive,” dated January 22, 2002 (evidence file, f. 3847); Note from the Última Hora newspaper, entitled “Search in the field” of January 22, 2002 (evidence file, f. 7424); Note from the La Nación newspaper, entitled “Unsuccessful search for Arrom and Martí in the north of Concepción,” of January 27, 2002 (evidence file, f. 10250), and Note from the Última Hora newspaper, entitled “Without traces of Arrom, and Martí,” of January 28, 2002 (evidence file, f. 7576). 219 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177, and Case of Alvarado Espinoza et al. v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 370, para. 240. 220 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 Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, para. 203.