[alleged] victim was alive when he was turned over to a soldier, who had taken him into the residence of the Japanese ambassador, which at that time was occupied by the military.” The representatives found that the State had not exercised due diligence to determine the identify of all those who took part in executing Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez and to punish them. 418. The representatives pointed out that, from the time the criminal process had begun on June 11, 2002, “defendant Jesús Zamudio Aliaga had been a fugitive from Peruvian justice, despite the fact that a warrant had been issued to the National Police to find him immediately, capture him, and confine him in the judicial prison.” There was no further information, they noted, on actions taken by judicial and police authorities to locate and arrest this suspect, whose trial had been held in abeyance until such time as he was turned over to the trial court. They also said that the actions by court assistants who support the judges in charge of investigation and prosecution of facts involving serious human rights violations in themselves are creating a situation that runs counter to the general obligation to guarantee. 419. Finally, the representatives pointed to the case of former President Alberto Fujimori Fujimori, commenting that the prosecutor general had brought a complaint before the Congress seven years after the facts occurred and over eight years after the first complaints had been lodged. It was never processed. Four more years passed before the specialized provincial prosecutor brought charges. They closed by saying, “over four years after judicial authorities requested the extradition of Alberto Fujimori [Fujimori], the request had yet to be resolved by the ministry of justice and the president of the Peruvian cabinet of ministers.” 420. The State offered no specific arguments on this matter. Considerations of the Court 421. Although the Court has held that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means, not results, this does not mean that the investigation can be launched as “a mere formality preordained to be ineffective”, or simply a step taken by private interests that depends upon the procedural initiative of the victims or their families or the provision of evidence by private parties.463 It is the responsibility of government authorities to conduct a serious, impartial and effective investigation, using all the available legal means, designed to determine the truth and to prosecute and ultimately punish the perpetrators of the facts, especially in a case such as this one, in which agents of the state were involved. 464 422. This Court has addressed the obligation to investigate with due diligence, asserting that the investigating body for an alleged human rights violation should use all the legal means at its disposal, within a reasonable period of time, to conduct all necessary actions and inquiries to achieve the desired results.465 However, the Court recalls that the State’s obligation to investigate consists primarily of fixing responsibilities and, where relevant, prosecuting and finally convicting. The Court reiterates that this is an obligation of means or conduct, and Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 121. 463 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 143, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 157. 464 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru, supra, para. 80, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 200. 465