question, both to attempt to clarify the facts and to punish the perpetrators, as well as to seek appropriate reparations.93 126. As the IACHR has indicated, the State has the obligation to ensure that “every action by the State as part of the investigative process, as well as the entire investigation, must be directed towards a specific purpose, determination of the truth and the investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution, and possible punishment of all persons responsible for said acts.”94 127. Thus the Court has found that once the state authorities have knowledge of the event in question, the obligation to investigate entails ex officio opening without delay of a serious, impartial, and effective investigation, using all available legal means, directed to determining the truth and to pursuing, capturing, prosecuting, and eventually punishing all the persons responsible for the acts in question,95 especially whenever they involve or may have involved state agents.96 This duty is an obligation of means and not of results, and it must be taken on by the State as its own legal duty, and not merely as a formality condemned to fail in advance, or as a mere response to specific interests, that relies on the initiative of the victims or their families or on private contributions of pieces of evidence.97 The State’s obligation to investigate must be carried out diligently, to prevent impunity and the repetition of such acts.98 128. The Inter-American Court has established that in order for a legal recourse to be effective, it is not enough that it is stipulated in the Constitution or the law, or that it is officially admissible, but it must actually be capable of establishing whether a human rights violation has been incurred and of providing the necessary means to remedy it.99 129. From the foregoing, it is evident that if one of the objectives of forced disappearance is to prevent legal remedies and the relevant procedural guarantees from being exercised, when persons are subject to detention, retention, or any form of deprivation of liberty for the purpose of causing their forced disappearance and the victims themselves cannot gain access to the available remedies, it is essential that family members or other alleged persons can have access to prompt and effective judicial remedies or proceedings as a way of determining their whereabouts or the status of their health or to identify the authority who ordered the deprivation of liberty or implemented it. 100 93 Inter-American Court, Case of García Prieto et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 20 de November de 2007. Series C No. 168. Para. 102; Inter-American Court, Case of the “Street Children,” (Villagrán Morales et al). Judgment of 19 de November de 1999. Series C No. 63. Para. 227; and Inter-American Court, Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of 01 March 2005. Series C No. 120, Para. 63. 94 IACHR, Report No. 85/13, Case 12251, Admissibility and Merits, Vereda la Esperanza, Colombia, 4 de November de 2013, para. 242. Inter-American Court, Case of Kawas Fernández Vs. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 3 April 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 101. 95 Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Vs. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of 29 July 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 177; and Case of Veliz Franco et al Vs. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 19 de mayo de 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 96 Inter-American Court. Case of Myrna Mack Chan Vs. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 156; and Case of the Displaced Afrodescendant Communities of the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) Vs. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 20 November 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 371. 97Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 177; and, Case of Veliz Franco et al Vs. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para.183. 98 Inter-American Court. Case of Ituango Massacres Vs. Colombia. Judgment of 1 July 2006, Series C. No. 148, para. 319; Case of Veliz Franco et al Vs. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 19 de mayo de 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183; y Case of Hermanos Landaeta Mejías et al Vs. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs.. Judgment of August 27, 2014, Series C No. 281, para., 216. 99 Inter-American Court. Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of 17 June 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 61; Case of “Cinco Pensionistas”. Judgment of 28 de febrero de 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 136, y Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, Judgment of 31 August 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 113. 100 Inter-American Court, Case of Anzualdo Castro Vs. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 22 de September de 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 64. 26