135. By the same token, the Court has ruled that the next-of-kin of the alleged victims have the right to expect, and the States the obligation to ensure, that what befell the alleged victims will be investigated effectively by the State authorities; that proceedings will be filed against those allegedly responsible for the unlawful acts; and, if applicable, the pertinent penalties will be imposed, and the losses suffered by the next-of-kin repaired.134 Accordingly, State authorities, once they become aware of an act of violation of human rights, especially the rights to life, humane treatment and personal liberty,135 have a duty to initiate ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation,136 which must be conducted within a reasonable period of time.137 136. In addition, the Court has held that “as a result of the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the States are obliged to provide effective judicial recourses to the victims of human rights violations that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law.”138 137. As to the substance of the duty to investigate with due diligence, the Inter-American Court has held that the investigation should be undertaken utilizing all the legal means available and should be oriented toward the determination of the truth.139 In that same vein, the Court has found that the State has the duty to ensure that everything necessary is done to learn the truth about what happened and for those responsible to be punished,140involving all State institutions to that end.141 The Court has also said that the authorities should adopt all reasonable measures to secure the necessary probative material in order to carry out the investigation.142 [… continuation] November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paragraph 227; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, paragraph 63. 134 I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paragraph 103; Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph 114, and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 382. 135 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, paragraph 100. 136 I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paragraph 101; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraph 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, paragraph 130. 137 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of Friday, May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163 paragraph 146, and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 382. 138 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, paragraph 124; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163 paragraph 145; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 381; and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, paragraph 106. 139 I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paragraph 101. 140 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph 114; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163 paragraph 146, and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 382. 141 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, paragraph 130; Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paragraph 120 and the Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, paragraph 66. 142 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, paragraph 122. 32