56 296. On this point the Inter-American Court has held that: The failure to investigate serious violations of humane treatment such as torture and rape in armed 304 conflicts and/or as a systematic pattern constitutes breach of the State’s obligations in the face of 305 grave human rights violations, which contravene mandatory rules (jus cogens, “compelling law”) 306 and generate obligations for states , such as the duty to investigate and punish those practices, in accordance with the American Convention, and in this case in light of the IACPPT and the 307 Convention of Belém do Pará . 297. The State’s obligation to investigate and punish violations of human rights must be taken seriously. The Court has held: In certain circumstances, it may be difficult to investigate acts that violate an individual’s rights. The duty to investigate, like the duty to prevent, is not breached merely because the investigation does not produce a satisfactory result. Nevertheless, it must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government. This is true regardless of what agent is eventually found responsible for the violation. Where the acts of private parties that violate the Convention are not seriously investigated, those parties are aided in a sense by the government, thereby 308 making the State responsible on the international plane. 298. The IACHR also recalls that the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia declared that the “condemnation and punishment of rape becomes all the more urgent where it is committed by, or at the instigation of, a public official, or with the consent or acquiescence of such an 309 official.” 299. Lastly, the Commission recalls that the clarification of the facts is a right of the relatives of the victims of grave violations of human rights. In this respect, the Court has held that: 304 In this respect it should be noted that, in international law, various tribunals have pronounced themselves on this point. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia deemed rape to be comparable to torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment when it is committed as a systematic practice against the civilian population with the intent of obtaining information, punishing, intimidating, humiliating or discriminating against the victim or a third person. ICTY, Trial Ch II. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija. Judgment, Dec. 10, 1998. paras. 267.i, 295; ICTY, Trial Ch II. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al (Celebici case). Judgment, Nov. 16, 1998. paras. 941; ICTY, Appeals Ch. Prosecutor v. Delalic et al (Celebici case). Judgment, Feb. 20, 2001. paras. 488, 501; and ICTY, Trial Ch II. Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al. Judgment, Feb. 22, 2001. paras. 656, 670, 816. Similarly, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has also equated rape with torture, holding that rape may constitute torture when committed by or with the acquiescence, consent or instigation of a public official.. ICTR, Trial Ch I. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, JeanPaul. Judgment, Sep. 2, 1998. paras. 687, 688. For its part, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that rape may constitute torture when committed by State officials against persons in their custody. ECHR. Case of Aydin v. Turkey. Judgment, Sep. 25, 1997. Paras. 86, 87, and Case of Maslova and Nalbandov v. Russia. Judgment. Jul. 7, 2008. Para. 108. 305 I-A Court, Goiburú et al. vs. Paraguay. Judgment of 22 September 2006. Series C No. 153, Para. 128; Masacre de la Rochela vs. Colombia, Judgment of 11 de May 2007. Series C No. 163, Para. 132; and Anzualdo Castro vs. Peru, Judgment of 25 November 2006. Series C No. 160, Para. 59 306 I-A Court, Goiburú et al. vs. Paraguay. Judgment of 22 September 2006. Series C No. 153párr. 131 307 I-A Court, Masacre de las Dos Erres vs. Guatemala. Judgment of 24 November 2009. Series C No. 211, Para. 140 308 I-A Court, Velásquez Rodríguez vs. Honduras. Judgment of 29 July 1988. Series C No. 4, Para. 177. In a similar vein, the Constitutional Court of Colombia has declared that “in international law it is considered insufficient for the effective protection of human rights to grant the victims and injured parties mere indemnification for their injuries; truth and justice are necessary if situations that generated grave violations of human rights are not to be repeated in a society and, moreover, recognition of the intrinsic dignity of the equal and inalienable rights of all human beings demands that judicial remedies must be designed by states to produce full reparation to victims and injured parties, which must include economic compensation, access to justice to know the truth about what has occurred, and to seek through institutional channels fair punishment for those responsible.” Judgment C.-228/02 April 3, 2002. 309 Celebici Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgment of 16 November 1998, Para. 495,. In: Louis Henkin et al., Human Rights, Foundation Press, New York, 1999, pp. 380 and 381