such as those alleged in this case and, in addition, ensure the re-establishment, if possible, of the violated rights and, as appropriate, the reparation of the damage caused by the human rights violations.221 175. The obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as its inherent legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a mere measure taken by private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin or upon their offer of proof.222 The State’s obligation to investigate must be fulfilled diligently in order to prevent impunity and the repetition of this type of facts. In this regard, the Court recalls that impunity encourages the repetition of human rights violations.223 176. In light of this obligation, once the State authorities are aware of an incident, they must open, ex officio and immediately, a serious, impartial and effective investigation using all legal means available, designed to determine the truth and to pursue, capture, prosecute and eventually punish all the perpetrators of the acts, especially when State agents are or could be involved.224 177. Furthermore, the Court has noted that this obligation persists “whatsoever the agent to which the violation may eventually be attributed, even private individuals; because, if their acts are not investigated genuinely, they would, to some extent, be assisted by the public authorities, and this would entail the State’s international responsibility.”225 178. This Court has also indicated that Article 8 of the Convention reveals that the victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin, must be given ample possibility to be heard and to act in the respective proceedings, both to seek clarification of the facts and the punishment of those responsible, and to obtain due reparation.226 In this regard, the Court has indicated that, in a case of extrajudicial execution, the affected rights correspond to the deceased victim’s next of kin, who are the interested party in the search to obtain justice and to whom the State must provide effective remedies to guarantee them access to justice, the investigation and eventual punishment, as appropriate, of those responsible, and integral reparation of the consequences of the violations.227 179. Consequently, in keeping with the Court’s case law, the next of kin of the victims have the right, and the States the obligation, to an effective investigation by State authorities of what happened to the victims; that proceedings be instituted against those 221 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, paras. 166 and 176, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 220, para. 112. 222 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, para. 177, and Case of Torres Millacura et al., supra note 41, para. 112. 223 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 98, para. 319, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 220, para. 141. 224 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 39, para. 143, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 151, para. 117. 225 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, paras. 177, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 179, para. 167. 226 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 43, para. 227, and Case of Torres Millacura et al., supra note 41, para. 113. 227 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 94, para. 170, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 176, para. 120. 58