32 the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García. b) Obligation to conduct an effective investigation derived from the guarantee obligation 90. The Court must determine, pursuant to the guarantee obligations laid down in Article 1(1) of the Convention, whether the events giving rise to this case were adequately investigated in the domestic proceedings. 91. The Court has stated that, in cases of extrajudicial executions, it is essential that the States conduct an effective investigation into a deprivation of life case and punish the perpetrators, especially when state officials are involved; otherwise they would be creating, in a climate of impunity, the conditions that will allow these events to continue, which is contrary to the duty to respect and guarantee the right to life.55 Moreover, if violations of human rights are not vigorously investigated, they would be, to a certain extent, favored by public authorities, which would compromise the State’s international liability.56 92. In the Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre,57 the Court asserted that the States’ obligation to conduct an effective official investigation in cases of extrajudicial, illegal, arbitrary or summary executions derives from the general obligation to guarantee to all persons under their jurisdiction the human rights enshrined in the Convention laid down in Article 1(1) thereof, together with the right to life, as provided by Article 4 of said Convention.58 In these cases, the authorities of a State must initiate a rigorous, impartial and effective investigation ex officio and as soon as is practicable after they take knowledge of the facts.59 93. The duty to investigate is a best efforts obligation, rather than an obligation to ensure results. This must be undertaken by the State as its own legal duty rather than as a mere formality doomed to failure from the very beginning,60 or as the pursuit of private interests, dependent on proceedings initiated by the victims or the families themselves or prosecuted on the basis of evidence provided by private 55 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang, supra note 45, para. 156. 56 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 145; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, paras. 137 and 232. 57 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 142. 58 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, paras. 137 and 145; Case of Huilca-Tecse, supra note 2, para. 66; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 44, para. 131. In the same regard, cf. Eur.C.H.R, Gongadze v. Ukraine, No. 34056/02, Judgment of November 8, 2005, para. 175; Eur.C.H.R., Nachova and others v. Bulgaria [GC], supra note 46, para. 110; and Eur.C.H.R., Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, No. 24746/94, Judgment of May 4, 2001, para. 105. 59 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 143; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 219; and Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 145. In the same regard, cf. Eur.C.H.R., Nachova and others v. Bulgaria [GC], supra note 46, para. 111. 60 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 143; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 223; and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 59, para. 146.