245. Based on the above considerations, the Court concludes that the State violated the guarantee of a natural judge regarding the investigation into the attack perpetrated by soldiers against Mr. Vélez Restrepo on August 29, 1996; consequently, Colombia is responsible for the violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Vélez Restrepo. B) Absence of effective and diligent investigations 246. The Court considers it important to emphasize that none of the violations committed against Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family was investigated effectively in the criminal jurisdiction. Both the attack of August 29, 1996, and the subsequent threats, harassment and attempted deprivation of liberty remain in impunity. This Court has verified that the only punishments meted out by the domestic courts were two disciplinary sanctions within the Armed Forces. However, these proceedings did not sanction any soldier directly for physically attacking Mr. Vélez Restrepo on August 29, 1996, and the State has not even proved that the sanctions were final, because it indicated that it had not found the rulings that decided the appeals filed by the soldiers (supra para. 103); hence the Court was unable to examine the corresponding final rulings. 247. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as its own juridical duty and not as a mere formality predestined to be unsuccessful, or as a simple measure responding to private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin or on the private contribution of probative elements. 236 The State’s obligation to investigate must be complied with diligently in order to avoid impunity and the repetition of such acts. In this regard, the Court recalls that impunity encourages the repetition of human rights violations.237 The State authorities have the responsibility to carry out a serious, impartial, and effective investigation using all legal means available, designed to determine the truth and to pursue, capture, prosecute, and eventually punish the authors of the facts, especially in a case such as this one in which State agents were involved.238 248. Regarding the investigation into the attack perpetrated by soldiers against Mr. Vélez Restrepo on august 29, 1996, the State asked the Court to “acknowledge the progress made in the investigation and punishment” under the disciplinary proceedings conducted before the Armed Forces and the Attorney General’s Office. In this regard, the Court has recognized that disciplinary proceedings can fulfill a complementary function to guarantee the rights established in the Convention, but reiterates that they tend to protect the administrative function and the correction and control of public officials and are not intended to clarify the facts and establish responsibilities in the case, as the criminal jurisdiction does.239 236 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 265. 237 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, para. 319, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 203. 238 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 143, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 204. 239 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 215, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 133. 72