123. In this way, all persons who have had their human rights violated have the right to obtain from the competent bodies of the State, a clarification of the events of the violation and an establishment of the corresponding responsibilities through investigation and trial as established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention.110 124. The State’s obligation to investigate and punish human rights violations must be undertaken by the States in a serious manner. To this effect the Court has said: 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 making the State responsible on the international plane.111 125. In relation to the State’s duty to investigate, the Inter-American Commission has also declared that: The duty to investigate is not considered unfulfilled simply because no person has been found guilty in the case or because of a circumstance in which, in spite of efforts made, the verification of the facts is impossible. However, in order to establish convincingly and credibly that this result has not been the consequence of a mechanical execution of certain procedural formalities rather than a result of the State’s effective search for the truth, the State must demonstrate that it has conducted an immediate, thorough, serious, and impartial investigation.112 126. Specifically, in relation to the States’ duty to investigate violations of the right to life, contained in Article 4 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has established that: The State has the obligation to commence ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation, which is not undertaken as a simple formality preordained to be ineffective. This investigation must be undertaken with all of the legal means available and must be aimed at the determination of the truth and at the investigation, trial, and punishment of those responsible for the violations, especially when state agents are, or may be, involved.113 110 Inter-American Court. Case of Barrios Altos Vs. Perú. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Ser. C., No. 75, para. 48. Also: IACHR, Report No. 85/09, Case 11.607, Compliance Agreement, Víctor Hugo Maciel, Paraguay, August 6, 2009, para. 145. 111 Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Ser. C. No. 4. para. 177. 112 IACHR, Report No. 55/97, Case 11.137, Merits, Juan Carlos Abella et. al., Argentina, November 18,1997, para. 412; and Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218, Merits, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Nicaragua, February 18, 1998, para. 96 and 97. 113 Inter-American Court. Case of Ximenes Lopes Vs. Brazil. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Ser. C. No. 149, para.148; Case of Baldeón García Vs. Perú. Merits, Reparations, and Costs.