irrespective of whether a complaint has been filed because, in cases of enforced disappearance, international law and the general obligation of guarantee impose the obligation to investigate the case ex officio, immediately, and in a genuine, impartial and effective manner; hence, it does not depend on the procedural initiative of the victim or his next of kin or on the provision of probative elements by private individuals. 289 In this regard, the Court has indicated that the authorities must conduct the investigation as an inherent legal obligation, and not cause this burden to fall on the initiative of the next of kin. 290 This is an essential and conditioning factor for the protection of the rights impaired by these situations. 291 Consequently, the investigation must be conducted using all available legal means and it must be aimed at discovering the truth and at the pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of all the masterminds and perpetrators of the facts, especially when State agents are or could be involved. 292 Likewise, impunity 293 must be eradicated by the establishment of both general responsibilities – of the State – and individual responsibilities – criminal, or of any other kind, of its agents or of private individuals. 294 In compliance with this obligation, the State must remove all the obstacles, de facto and de jure, that maintain impunity. 295 179. Furthermore, in cases of enforced disappearance, the investigation must have certain specific connotations that arise from the nature and complexity of the phenomenon investigated; in other words, the investigation must also include all the actions required to determine the fate of the victim and his whereabouts. 296 The Court has already explained that the obligation to investigate facts of this nature subsists while uncertainty about the final fate of the disappeared person remains, because the right of the victim’s next of kin to know what happened to him and, if appropriate, where his remains are, represents a fair expectation that the State must satisfy with all the means available to it. 297 180. In sum, owing to the nature and seriousness of the facts, especially if a context of the systematic violation of human rights exists, States are obliged to conduct an investigation with the above-mentioned characteristics and the competent authorities must establish the criminal responsibilities strictly observing the requirements of due process of law established in Article 8 of the American Convention. 289 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 241. 290 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 132. 291 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 145, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 197. 292 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia, supra, para. 155, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 115. 293 The Court has defined impunity as “the complete absence of the investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and sentencing of those responsible for the violations of the rights protected by the American Convention”. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, paras. 173, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala, supra, footnote 303. 294 128. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 131, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 295 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra, para. 277, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra, para. 128. 296 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 80, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 134. 297 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 181, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 134. 67