40 without the State genuinely seeking the truth, the State must show that it carried out an immediate, exhaustive and impartial investigation. 113 132. The Commission has also written that in cases involving crimes that the State prosecutes, the latter has an obligation to move the criminal process forward to its ultimate consequences. As a general rule, a criminal investigation should be carried out promptly to protect the interests of the victims, preserve the evidence, and even safeguard the rights of all persons considered suspects in the investigation. 114 133. The duty to investigate is one of means and is not breached merely because the investigation does not produce a satisfactory result. Nevertheless, it must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective 115 or as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof. 116 134. The Commission observes that the fire that broke out at the San Pedro Sula Prison on May 17, 2004, and that claimed the lives of 107 persons, was a very serious event of massive proportions in which many people’s right to life was violated, all of whom were in the State’s custody at the time. The Commission observes further that the causes of the fire were delineated in the investigations and expert reports prepared during the first three months following the fire, especially the shoddy electrical system in Cellblock 19. None of this has been contested at any time, either in the domestic proceedings on the case or in the case with the Commission. Nevertheless, six and a half years have passed since the fire and still the State has not assigned the corresponding criminal, administrative or disciplinary blame. 135. An examination of Case No. 1009-04 reveals that all the procedural activity undertaken by the Honduran court authorities was focused at establishing the criminal culpability of Mr. Elías Aceituno Canaca, who was Director of the San Pedro Sula Prison at the time of the fire. The courts do not appear to have summoned any other authority to submit to questioning. Even the former Director of the prison was never formally indicted. This points up the fact that the State never had a clear interest in determining where the blame for the May 17, 2004 tragedy lies. 136. The Commission is struck by the fact that in the decisions in which the charges against Mr. Elías A. Canaca were dismissed and the lower-court ruling was upheld, the court authorities themselves argued that he was not to blame, that other authorities were to blame for what happened (see paragraphs 53 and 55 of this report), although those authorities were never investigated. Even the State took this position in the Commission’s proceedings on this case. 117 113 IACHR, Report No. 33/04, Case 11.634, Merits, Jailton Neri Fonseca, Brazil, March 11, 2004, paragraph 97. 114 IACHR, Report No. 62/00, Case 11.727, Admissibility, Hernando Osorio Correa, Colombia, October 3, 2000, paragraphs 24 and 25; IACHR, Report No 52/97, Merits, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Nicaragua, February 18, 1998, paragraphs 96 and 97. I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paragraph 131; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 120. 115 116 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 120. 117 See: The State’s submission, received July 20, 2007, wherein it stated that the Director of the prison at the time of the events “took the appropriate administrative steps to improve the subhuman conditions in which the inmates lived prior to their death, but received no affirmative response or the assistance needed to take the corrective measures that might have avoided the fire.” .