investigation, finding, arrest, prosecution, and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the events.”604 336. The IACHR advises that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means, rather than results, which the State must undertake as a standalone legal obligation and not a mere formality predestined to be ineffective.605 In this regard, the investigation must be conducted with due diligence and in an effective, serious, and impartial manner606 within a reasonable period of time.607 The Commission recalls that the obligation to investigate and punish every act that entails a violation of the rights protected by the Convention requires that not only the direct perpetrators of human rights violations be punished, but also the masterminds.608 337. Taking into account the precedents cited, the Commission will analyze whether in the instant case the Colombian State conducted a serious and diligent investigation within a reasonable period of time, in order to shed light on the different allegations reported, as well as to identify and eventually punish the persons responsible. The IACHR underscores that this case does not refer to isolated acts against CAJAR members, but rather, to a pattern of acts with common potential sources of risk related to their work as human rights defenders. 1. The investigations into acts of aggression, threats, and harassment 338. In a preliminary manner, the IACHR takes note of the different complaints filed by CAJAR members regarding the acts of aggression, threats, and harassment they suffered at the hands of individuals as well as agents of the State. 339. The Commission has indicated that the most effective means for protecting human rights defenders in the hemisphere is by effectively investigating the acts of violence against them and punishing those responsible.609 For its part, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has stated that the failure to investigate and punish those responsible for violations against defenders is the factor that most heightens the risk defenders face, as it leaves them defenseless and vulnerable.610 340. Regarding what the duty to investigate “with due diligence” consists of, the Inter-American Court has pointed out that this duty means that the investigation should be undertaken utilizing all the legal means available and should be oriented toward the determination of the truth.611 States must ensure that they take all the necessary steps to learn the truth about what happened and have those responsible punished,612 involving all the relevant government institutions.613 341. As far as how the investigation is conducted, the Inter-American Court has indicated that it is not its role to replace the domestic jurisdiction by ordering specific methods for investigating and judging a given I/A Court H.R. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, paragraph 101. 605 I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paragraph 131. 606 I/A Court H.R. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paragraph 101. 607 I/A Court H.R. Case Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph 114. 608 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 5 rev.1, March 7, 2006, paragraph 109. 609 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 5 rev.1, March 7, 2006 610OHCHR. Defending human rights: between a commitment and a risk. Report on the situation for human rights defenders in Mexico. Executive Summary, paragraph 7. 611 I/A Court H.R. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168. Paragraph 101. 612 I/A Court H.R. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, paragraph 114. 613 I/A Court H.R. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, paragraph 66. 604 66