51 265. In this same vein, the Court has indicated that the next of kin have the right, and the States have the obligation, to have what happened to the victims effectively investigated by State authorities; to have a proceeding against those allegedly responsible for these crimes; if applicable to have the relevant punishment imposed on them, and to secure reparations for the damages and prejudice 293 that the next of kin have endured. According to the above, State authorities, once they learn of a human rights violation, particularly with respect to the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal 294 liberty, have the duty to initiate ex officio and without delay a serious, impartial, and effective 295 296 investigation, which must be conducted within a reasonable period of time. 266. Based on the precedents cited, the Commission will analyze whether in the instant case the Venezuelan State conducted a serious and diligent investigation, within a reasonable period of time, as a mechanism to guarantee the rights to life of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías, as well as the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, and to ensure the rights to the truth, justice, and reparations for the next of kin. 267. According to the facts that the Commission has recognized as proven, this analysis shall proceed in the following order: 1) The right to a diligent and reasonably prompt investigation regarding the death of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías; 2) The right to a diligent and reasonably prompt investigation regarding the death of Eduardo José Eduardo José Landaeta; 3) The failure to investigate the connection between the deaths of the Landaeta Mejías brothers and their possible linkage with the context; 4) The right to a diligent and reasonably prompt investigation regarding the unlawful and arbitrary arrest as well as violations of the right to humane treatment endured by the victim Eduardo José Landaeta; and 5. Conclusion. 1. The right to a diligent and reasonably prompt investigation regarding the death of Igmar Alexander Landaeta Mejías 268. Regarding the substance of the duty to investigate “with due diligence,” the InterAmerican Court has held that this means that investigations must use all available legal means and be 297 directed to determining the truth. Along the same lines, the Court has indicated that the State has the duty to ensure that everything necessary be done to learn the truth about what happened and that those 298 299 ultimately responsible are punished, involving all state institutions. 293 I/A Court HR. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C, No. 168. para. 103; I/A Court HR., Bulacio Case v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100, para. 114; and I/A Court HR., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Case. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160. para. 382. 294 I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167. para. 100. 295 I/A Court HR. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C, No. 168. para. 101; I/A Court HR., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110. para. 146; I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167. para. 130. 296 I/A Court HR., Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100. para. 114; I/A Court HR., Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 163. para. 146; I/A Court HR., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Case. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160. para. 382. 297 I/A Court HR. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C, No. 168. para. 101. 298 I/A Court HR., Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100. para. 114; I/A Court HR., Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 163. para. 146; I/A Court HR., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Case. Judgment of November 15, 2006. Series C, No. 160. para. 382. 299 I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167. para. 130; I/A Court HR., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C, No. 140. para. 120; and I/A Court HR., Huilca Tecse Case. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C, No. 121, para. 66.