-52ineffective.”21 The investigation conducted by the State in compliance with this obligation “must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the Government.”22 62. The Court has also referred on many occasions to the right of the next of kin of the alleged victims to know what happened and who was responsible for the respective facts. The Court has reiterated that everyone, including the next of kin of victims of serious human rights violations, has the right to know the truth. Consequently, the next of kin of the victims, and society as a whole, must be informed of everything that happened in relation to the said violations. International human rights law has been developing this right to the truth;23 when it is recognized and exercised in a specific situation, it constitutes an important measure of reparation. Therefore, in this case, the right to know the truth gives rise to an expectation of the next of kin of the alleged victims that the State must satisfy.24 63. This Court has also stated that: From Article 8 of the Convention it is evident that the victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin should have substantial possibilities of being heard and acting in the respective proceedings, both to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation.25 64. Consequently, the next of kin of the alleged victims have the right to expect, and the States the obligation to ensure, that what befell the alleged victims will be investigated effectively by the State authorities; that proceedings will be filed against those allegedly responsible for the unlawful acts; and, if applicable, the pertinent penalties will be imposed, and the losses suffered by the next of kin repaired.26 65. The obligatory investigation by the State must be carried out with due diligence, because it must be effective.27 This implies that the investigating body must, within a reasonable time, take all necessary measures to try and obtain 21 Cf. Case of Bulacio, supra note 8, para. 112; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 144; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 212. 22 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 184; Case of Bulacio, supra note 8, para. 112; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 21, para. 144; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 21, para. 212. 23 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 128; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 97; and Case of Tibi, supra note 20, para. 257. 24 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 128; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 97; and Case of Tibi, supra note 20, para. 257. 25 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 186; Case of Las Palmeras. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 59; and Case of Durand and Ugarte. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 129. 26 Cf. Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 15, para. 187; Case of Las Palmeras, supra note 25, para. 65; and Case of Durand and Ugarte, supra note 25, para. 130. 27 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 129; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 98; and Case of Tibi, supra note 20, para. 258.