have the obligation to guarantee the safety of the authorities in charge of the investigations and to implement the measures or mechanisms necessary to prevent the obstruction of investigations, as well as to offer safety to witnesses, victims, relatives, and other judicial representatives from threats, acts of intimidation, or assaults that seek to hinder the proceedings.145 Similarly, the Inter-American Court has stated that “in order to comply with the obligation to investigate within the framework of the guarantees of due process, the State must take all necessary measures to protect judicial officers, investigators, witnesses and the victims’ next of kin from harassment and threats” intended to obstruct the proceedings, preclude the establishment of the facts, and prevent the identification of the perpetrators.146 136. In addition, for investigations into crimes against freedom of expression to be successful, the investigators must receive sufficient human, financial, logistical, and scientific resources to gather, secure, and evaluate the evidence and perform other necessary tasks to determine responsibility.147 137. The IACHR has held that in cases involving a violent death in which State agents and/or powerful criminal groups are under investigation for their participation, States must ensure that the responsibility to investigate and prosecute human rights violations is assigned to the authorities that are in the best position to adjudicate them effectively, autonomously, and independently. In this respect, States must establish safeguards so that the competent authorities can operate without being subject to the influence of the government official or criminal organization allegedly involved in the crime. At the same time, they must guarantee that the witnesses and relatives of the victim are able to participate in the proceedings without fear of retaliation. These safeguards may entail, for example, removing the investigation from the jurisdiction of the local authorities, or changing the venues of criminal proceedings. 138. Indeed, as the Inter-American Court has acknowledged, due diligence in the investigation of such matters means taking account of the patterns of action of the state or criminal power structures that can guarantee impunity in the case, through outside pressures, attacks, threats, and other forms of intimidation directed at judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and other persons involved in criminal investigations. In this respect, the Inter-American Court has held that threats and intimidation suffered by judges, witnesses, and relatives “cannot be examined in isolation, but should be analyzed in the context of obstructions to the investigation of the case. Consequently, such acts become another means of perpetuating impunity and preventing the truth of what happened from being known.”148 [… continuation] III (Violence against Journalists and Media Workers: Inter-American Standards and National Practices on Prevention, Protection and Prosecution of Perpetrators). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149. Doc. 50. December 31, 2013. Para. 186. 145 IACHR. 2013 Annual Report. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Violence against Journalists and Media Workers: Inter-American Standards and National Practices on Prevention, Protection and Prosecution of Perpetrators). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149. Doc. 50. December 31, 2013. Para. 186; IACHR. Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Special Study on the Status of Investigations into the Murder of Journalists during the 1995-2005 Period for Reasons That May Be Related to Their Work in Journalism. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.131. Doc. 35. March 8, 2008. Para. 58. 146 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163. Para. 171. 147 IACHR. 2013 Annual Report. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter III (Violence against Journalists and Media Workers: Inter-American Standards and National Practices on Prevention, Protection and Prosecution of Perpetrators). OEA/Ser.L/V/II.149. Doc. 50. December 31, 2013. Para. 188; IACHR. 2010 Annual Report. Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Chapter II: 2010 Special Report on Freedom of Expression in Mexico. OEA/Ser.L/V/II. Doc. 5. March 7, 2011. Para. 733 y 821; United Nations General Assembly. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue. A/HRC/20/17. June 4, 2012. Para. 102. Available at: http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/137/87/PDF/G1213787.pdf?OpenElement; IACHR. Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression. Special Study on the Status of Investigations into the Murder of Journalists during the 1995-2005 Period for Reasons That May Be Related to Their Work in Journalism. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.131. Doc. 35. March 8, 2008. Para. 58, citing I/A Court H.R., Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117. Para. 135; United Nations General Assembly. Human Rights Council. Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. A/HRC/21/L.6. September 21, 2012. Para. 8. 148 I/A Court H. R., Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271. Para. 119.