31 necessary, redress the harm caused by the violations of human rights.100 Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention also recognize the right of the next of kin of the victims of these violations to be heard in the domestic proceedings and to learn the truth of what happened, and secure adequate punishment of the guilty parties and full reparations. 160. The Court has written that, under the American Convention, States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8 (1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their 101 jurisdiction (Art. 1(1)). 161. The Commission will now examine whether, in the instant case, the Ecuadorian State conducted a serious and diligent investigation, within a reasonable time, as one means to guarantee José Luis García Ibarra’s right to life and to ensure his next of kin’s rights to the truth, to justice and to redress. 162. The case law of the Inter-American System has established that while the obligation to investigate is one of means and not results, it must nonetheless be undertaken by the State as its own legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. 102 Nor must it be viewed as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof.103 163. The Court has held that investigations undertaken by the State must be carried out with the necessary due diligence, using all the legal means available and geared toward a determination of the truth.104 Here, the Inter-American Commission has observed that […] the fact that no one has been convicted in the case or that, despite the efforts made, it was impossible to establish the facts, does not constitute a failure to fulfill the obligation to investigate. However, in order to establish in a convincing and credible manner that this result was not the product of a mechanical implementation of certain procedural formalities 100 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168. Paragraph 99. 101 I/A Court H.R., Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, paragraph 93. See also Case of the La Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, paragraph 145, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 183. 102 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 v. Perú. 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. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 120. 103 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. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 120. 104 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paragraph 101.