31 truth about what has happened. The duty to investigate is a means to achieving these ends, and the failure to comply with it implicates the international responsibility of the State.110 120. It is important to emphasize that where there are allegations of presumed torture or abuse, the time required to carry out the expert forensic reports is essential to demonstrate irrefutably the existence of harm, particularly when the only witnesses available are the perpetrators and the victims and the proof may be limited. It follows that in order for an investigation into acts of torture to be effective, it must be carried out promptly.111 121. The Commission notes that in the present case, the military authorities were informed on July 6, 2001 by Dr. Chang of the possibility that a crime of torture had taken place in the military facilities, but they did not initiate an investigation, nor did they take any security measures to protect the alleged victim, despite the fact that the very same military establishment had recognized that it was following an erroneous interpretation of military discipline. 122. As a result, and based on the elements of fact and law analyzed previously, the IACHR considers that Mr. Quispealaya Vilcapoma, when he was engaged in shooting practice, received a deliberate and intentional blow from his military instructor that caused him intense physical and mental suffering, had the purpose of punishing him, and that the State did not initiate ex oficio the pertinent investigations when it was informed that an act of torture may have occurred in its facilities, consistent with its responsibility. In this sense, the Commission concludes that the aforementioned acts of violence constitute violations of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same and Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention 123. The Inter-American Court has repeatedly stated that the right to access to justice should ensure that alleged victims or their families have the right to have all necessary measures taken to determine the truth of the events that occurred and to punish the responsible parties within a reasonable time period.112 Although the duty to investigate is one of means and not results, it should be assumed by the State as a duty in itself and not as a mere formality that is destined in advance to be ineffective113, or as a mere realization of private parties that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their families or the private submission of evidence.114 110 I/A Ct. H.R.. Case of Bueno Alves V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 11 May 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 90; I/A Ct. H.R.. Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Judgment of 26 September 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 81. 111 I/A Ct. H.R.. Case of Bueno Alves V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 11 May 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 111. 112 Case of the Ituango Massacres V. Colombia. Judgment of 1 July 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 289; y I/A Ct. H.R.. Case of Baldeón García V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 6 April 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 166. 113 I/A Ct. H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Judgment of 29 July 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; I/A Ct. H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní y García Santa Cruz V. Perú. Preliminary Exception, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 10 July 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 131; y I/A Ct. H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez y otros V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 4 July 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 120. 114 I/A Ct. H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez Honduras. Judgment of 29 July 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; I/A Ct. H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez y otros V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 4 July 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 120.