349. In cases where it has been established that extrajudicial executions have occurred, it is essential that States conduct an effective investigation into the violation of the right to life recognized in Article 4 of the Convention, geared toward discovering the truth and prosecuting, arresting, bringing to trial and ultimately punishing the perpetrators of the incident, 427 especially when agents of the state are involved.428 350. The fact that the deaths in the instant case took place in the context of a noninternational armed conflict does not release the State from its obligation to undertake an investigation, initially on the use of force with lethal consequences; even so, the Court may take into account certain specific circumstances or constraints created by the situation of conflict per se when analyzing whether the State has complied with its obligations. The Court would caution, more particularly, that in the instant case, the hypothesis of alleged extrajudicial executions came to light several years after the events occurred (supra paras. 165 and 174), and therefore the State could not have been required to meet its obligation to initiate investigations at the outset, as stipulated by international standards developed for cases of extrajudicial executions (infra para. 381). 351. Nevertheless, the duty to investigate is an obligation of means, not results, that must be assumed by the State as its proper legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victims or their families or the provision of evidence by private parties. 429 352. The fulfillment of the obligation to undertake a serious, impartial and effective investigation of the events, in accordance with the guarantees of due process of law, has also entailed an analysis of how much time the investigation takes 430 and “all the legal means at the disposal”431 of family members of the deceased victim, to ensure that they are heard and can take part in the process of investigation.432 353. The Court does take note, in the instant case, that the State has recognized its responsibility for violating the duty to conduct the criminal trial in the ordinary courts within a reasonable period (supra Chapter IV). Today, 18 years after the event occurred, there is still no final, definitive ruling on what happened in the case of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, but instead, a new investigation has been ordered (supra para. 236); this sequence of events exceeds what could be considered a reasonable period for this purpose. In view of these considerations and the State’s recognition of responsibility, the Court takes as proven that the State failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(1) of the Convention, in injury of the family members of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza. Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 143, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 157. 427 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 156, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and surrounding areas v. El Salvador, supra, para. 243. 428 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, para. 121. 429 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 109. 430 Case of the “White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 173, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra, para. 109. 431 432 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra, para. 109.