30 the Convention determine, with respect to the acts and omissions of internal judicial authorities, the reach of the abovementioned principle of generating responsibility for State organs.69 98. The Court has ruled on the close relationship between the general duty to guarantee rights under Article 1(1) of the Convention and the specific rights that the State must protect under said instrument.70 As a result of this duty to guarantee rights, obligations emerge for the State to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention for every person within its jurisdiction.71 This duty to guarantee rights, when combined with the specific rights of the Convention, can be fulfilled in several ways, depending on the right that the State must guarantee and the particular circumstances of the case. 99. The duty to investigate human rights violations is found among the positive measures that States must undertake in order to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention.72 The Court has ruled that in order to fulfill the aforementioned duty, States must not only prevent but also investigate the violations of human rights embodied in the Convention, like those violations alleged in the present case. Furthermore, the State must reestablish, if possible, the right violated, and, when appropriate, redress the damages which resulted from the violations of human rights. 100. It is important to note that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means, not results. However, this duty should be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, and not as a simple formality condemned beforehand to be unsuccessful,73 or as a mere exercise of private interests, which depends upon the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or the presentation of evidence by private individuals.74 68 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 12, paras. 164, 169, and 170; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 10, para. 79; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 10, para. 103. 69 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C. No. 63, para. 220; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 14, para. 173; and Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 141. 70 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 12, para. 164; Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 73; and Case of the Massacre of la Rochela, v. Colombia. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 145. 71 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of the Massacre of la Rochela, supra note 70, para. 67; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 10, para. 114. 72 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 12, paras. 166 and 176; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 33, para. 110; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 10, para. 88. 73 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 12, para. 177; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 10, para. 131; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 10, para. 120. 74 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 12, para. 177; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 10, para. 120; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 69, para. 93.