22 recognized in the Convention. 75 The Court has written that the duty to investigate must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, and 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.76 Given that duty, once the state authorities have been apprised of the facts, the State has the obligation to initiate, ex officio and immediately, an efficient, impartial and effective investigation, 77 which must be carried out by all available legal means with the aim of getting at the truth. 78 77. The Court has also held that the obligation to ensure the right enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention “embodies the duty of the State to investigate possible acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment,” 79 an obligation reinforced by the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, whereby the State has an obligation “to take […] effective measures to prevent and punish torture within its jurisdiction.” 80 In a recent case in which the Court held that the State had failed to comply with its obligation to investigate acts of torture, it maintained that the State had violated its obligation to investigate ex officio, in violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention and Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 81 78. The Inter-American Court has elaborated upon the general obligation to ensure set forth in Article 1(1) with respect to the right to personal integrity, by holding that “there is a state obligation to start ex officio and immediately an effective investigation that allows it to identify, prosecute, and punish the responsible parties, when there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed.“ 82 The Court underscored the importance of States’ complying with this obligation in the following terms: I/A Court H.R., Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 191; I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraphs 166 and 176; I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 98; I/A Court H.R., Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 112. 75 I/A Court H.R., Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 191. I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, paragraphs 192 and 233, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 192. 76 77 I/A Court H.R., Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 191; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143; I/A Court H.R., Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 298, and I/A Court H.R., Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 290. 78 I/A Court H.R., Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 191 [translation ours].. 79 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Series C. No. 164, para. 88, citing the following judgments: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 344; I/A Court H.R., Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 78, and I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 147. 80 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Series C. No. 164, para. 88. I/A Court H.R., Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 193. 81 82 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Series C. No. 164, para. 89, citing the following judgments: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru.