is independent of whether the possible disappearance was carried out by individuals or by State agents. The Commission reiterates that “whenever there is a good reason to suspect that an individual has been subjected to a disappearance, it is crucial that prompt and immediate action be taken by prosecutorial and judicial authorities to order timely and necessary measures aimed at determining the whereabouts of the victim or the place where the victim might be found deprived of liberty.”274 240. The Court has held that the States have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8.1), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1.1).275 241. Thus the Court has pointed out that the obligation to investigate means that, once the State authorities become aware of the incident, they must open ex officio and without delay a serious, impartial, and effective investigation, through all legal means available and aimed at determining the truth and at prosecuting, apprehending, trying, and, if applicable, punishing all the perpetrators,276 especially when State agents are or may be involved.277 This obligation is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as an inherent legal obligation and not as a simple formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a mere step taken by private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their family members or on their offer of probative elements.278 The State’s obligation to investigate must be fulfilled diligently in order to avoid impunity and a repetition of this type of act.279 242. In addition, with regard to due diligence throughout the investigation, the Inter-American Court has established that “[e]ach act of the State that forms part of the investigative process, as well as the investigation as a whole, should have a specific purpose: the determination of the truth, and the investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the facts.” 280 . Accordingly, the State must show that it carried out an immediate, exhaustive, and impartial investigation,281 274 I/A Court H.R. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 134; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 221; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 167. See also Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional Measure regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 1, 2010, Considering 13; and Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court of August 29, 2013. Considering # 6. 275 I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 97; and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 215. 276 I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 177; and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 277 I/A Court H.R. Case of Myrna Mack Chan v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 156; and Case of the Afro-descendant Communities Displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 371. 278I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 177; and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 279 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C. No. 148, para. 319; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183; and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27. Series C No. 281, para. 216. 280 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 131. 281 IACHR, Report on the Merits, No. 55/97, Juan Carlos Abella et al. (Argentina), November 18, 1997, para. 412.