by the Joint Board, or of the judicial case files and the files of the investigation reopened by the Public Prosecution Service in 2007. 201. The State responded that it had complied with its obligation to investigate the facts of the case and that “[t]he investigations undertaken […] responded to criteria of impartiality, objectivity, and the search for the truth.” It referred to the establishment of the Police Board and the Joint Board and to their investigations. In addition, it described the decisions adopted in the judicial proceedings and indicated that “[t]he investigation was reopened on May 2, 2007,” and referred to two measures taken following the said reopening. In addition, it affirmed that it had not violated the principle of reasonable time, because the complexity of the case must be taken into account, owing to the uncertainty with regard to the whereabouts of the presumed victim, the number of defendants and the rights that it was alleged had been violated, as well as the supposed “limited procedural activity of the family,” and the context in which the facts occurred. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 13 to the detriment of Mr. González Medina’s family, the Dominican Republic indicated that “it had not restricted the right of the family […] apart from matters that could hinder the investigation. The State maintained that it had not violated Article 2 of the American Convention, but failed to submit any specific arguments in this regard. C) General considerations of the Court 202. The Court will now rule on the State’s alleged responsibility in relation to the members of Narciso Gonzalez Medina’s family, for the alleged failure to conduct a diligent and effective investigation into his forced disappearance, observing the guarantees of due process. In addition, the Court will determine whether the State complied with the obligation to guarantee Mr. Gonzalez Medina’s rights to personal liberty, personal integrity, life, and recognition of juridical personality by means of the said investigation. 203. The Court has established that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means rather than results, which must be assumed by the State as an inherent legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a measure taken by private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or of their family or on their production of probative elements. 241 The State’s obligation to investigate must be fulfilled diligently to avoid impunity and the repetition of this type of act. In this regard, the Court recalls that impunity encourages the repetition of human rights violations. 242 204. In light of this obligation, once the State authorities have become aware of the act, they must begin, ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation using all available legal means and designed to determine the whereabouts of the victim and the truth, and to pursue, capture, prosecute and eventually punish all the authors of the facts, especially when State agents are or may be involved. 243 205. In addition, the Court takes into account that the Inter-American Convention against Torture, ratified by the Dominican Republic on January 29, 1987, establishes the State’s 241 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 177, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 175. 242 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 319, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 175. 243 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, supra note 77, para. 176. 66