54 maintained that, in order to comply with the obligation to guarantee rights, the State must not only prevent, but also investigate any violation of the human rights established in the Convention, as well as re-establish the violated rights if possible, and repairing the damage produced by the human rights violations.171 195. The duty to investigate is an obligation of means and not results. The Court has stated repeatedly that the State must assume this du as a legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective,172 or as a measure of special interest that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or of their next or kin or on the private contribution of probative elements.173 The existence of this guarantee constitutes one of the basic pillars of the American Convention and of the rule of law in a democratic society, according to the Convention.174 196. In addition, the Court has indicated that, for the State to comply with Article 25 of the Convention it is not sufficient that remedies exist formally, but they must also be effective in the terms of that provision.175 The Court has reiterated that this obligation means that the remedy must be appropriate to combat the violation and that it must be implemented by the competent authority.176 197. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court must decide whether the State has violated the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. To this end, the Court has established that “[t]he elucidation of whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the actions of its judicial organs may mean that the Court has to examine the respective domestic proceedings.”177 198. Consequently, the Court will examine the claims relating to: (1) the mandado de segurança, as well as the actions before the (2) criminal, (3) administrative and (4) civil jurisdictions, in light of the standards established in the American Convention, and will decide whether judicial guarantees and the right to judicial protection were violated during these domestic proceedings. 1) Mandado de segurança 199. Regarding the alleged lack of an effective judicial remedy to protect the victims’ right to privacy, the Court indicated that the mandado de segurança was the appropriate remedy in that regard (supra para. 36). However, when the victims filed this remedy, the telephone interceptions had already ceased and the conversations had been disseminated 171 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 54, para. 166; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 170, para. 142 and Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 170, para. 78. 172 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 54, para. 177; Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 146, and Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 35, para. 101. 173 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 54, para. 177; Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 170, para. 84 and Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 146. 174 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 82; Case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note 9, para. 78, and Case of Bayarri, supra note 15, para. 102. 175 Cf. Ximenes Lopes v. Brasil. Preliminary objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, para. 4; Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 131; and Case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note 9, para. 78. 176 Cf. Acosta Calderon v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 93; López Alvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 139, and Case of Claude Reyes et al., supra note 175, para. 131. 177 Cf. Case of Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 28, para. 222; Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 170, para. 126, and Case of Tristán Donoso, supra note 9, para. 145.