the pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of all the perpetrators, 246 especially when State agents are or may be involved. 247 This is an obligation of means, rather than of results that must be assumed by the State as its inherent legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a measure taken at the instigation of private interests that depends upon the procedural activity of the victims or their families or on their offer of probative elements. 248 The State’s obligation to investigate must be complied with diligently to avoid impunity and the repetition of the same type of incident. Thus, the Court recalls that impunity encourages the repetition of human rights violations. 249 217. The Court has also indicated that, for an investigation to be effective in the terms of the Convention, it must be conducted with due diligence, which requires the investigating body to carry out all those measures and inquiries required to obtain the result sought. 250 In other words, it should be implemented “using all available legal means and be aimed at determining the truth.” 251 This duty encompasses every State institution, 252 both judicial and non-judicial, so that due diligence extends to the nonjudicial bodies in charge of the investigation prior to the proceedings in order to determine the circumstances of a death and the existence of sufficient evidence to institute criminal proceedings. If it fails to meet these requirements, subsequently the “State will be unable to exercise its prosecutorial powers effectively and efficiently and the courts will be unable to conduct the judicial proceedings that this type of violation calls for.” 253 218. In addition, the Court has established that “the right to effective judicial protection requires the judges to direct the proceedings in a way that avoids undue delays and disruptions resulting in impunity and thus thwarting the due judicial protection of human rights.” The Court has also considered that “judges, who are in charge of directing the proceedings have the duty to direct and guide the judicial proceedings in order not to sacrifice justice and due process of law to formalism and impunity”; to the contrary, this “leads to the violation of the State’s international obligation to prevent violations and to protect human rights, and also impairs the right of the victim and of his next of kin to know the truth about what happened and that all those responsible are identified and punished, and to obtain the respective reparations,” 254 all within a reasonable time. 255 In other words, judges must “act diligently, endeavoring to ensure that proceedings are conducted promptly.” 256 219. Regarding the investigations and the criminal proceedings conducted into the deaths of the Landaeta Mejías brothers, the Commission and the representatives argued 246 Cf. Case of Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 177 and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 183. 247 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra, para. 156, and Case of the Afrodescendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20,2013. Series C No. 270, para. 371. 248 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para.183. 249 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra, para. 319, and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 183. 250 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 83, and Case of Gutiérrez and family members, supra, para. 98. 251 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Veliz Franco et al., supra, para. 183. 252 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra, para. 110, and Case of Castillo González et al., supra, para. 122. 253 Cf. 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, para.133. 254 Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra, para. 211, and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 156. 255 Cf. Case of Bulacio, supra, para. 114 and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux, supra, para. 40. 256 Cf. Case of Bulacio, supra, para. 115 and Case of Luna López, supra, para. 170. 57