99 254. In the present case, this Court understands that from the events that occurred in the Miguel Castro Castro Prison the obligation to investigate the violation of the right to life arose for the State, especially if you take into consideration that tens of people dies and many more were injured due to an “operative” that implied the use f force, with great intensity, during 4 days and in which police and army agents participated. 255. The duty to investigate is an obligation of means, not results. The same must be assumed by the State as its own juridical duty and not as a simple formality condemned beforehand to be fruitless,141 or as a simple action of individual interests, which depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin or of the private contribution of evidentiary elements.142 The latter does not contravene the right that the victims of violations of human rights or their next of kin, to be heard during the investigation proceeding and the judicial processing of the case, as well as to participate amply in the same.143 256. At the light of this duty, once the state authorities become aware of the fact, they must begin ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation.144 This investigation must be carried out through all legal means available and oriented to the determination of the truth and the investigation, persecution, capture, prosecution, and in its case, punishment of all those responsible for the facts, especially when state agents are involved.145 257. To determine if the obligation to protect the rights to life through a serious investigation of what has occurred, has been fully complied with, the procedures opened at an internal level destined to identifying those responsible for the facts of the case must be examined. This exam shall be made in the light of that stated in Article 25 of the American Convention and of the requirements imposed by Article 8 of the same for all proceedings, and it will be carried out in Chapter XV of the present Judgment. * * * 258. Due to all the aforementioned, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to life enshrined in Article 4(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said treaty, in detriment of the 41 dead inmates identified, whose names are listed in Appendix 1 of victims of the present Judgment that for these effects forms part of the same. The facts are especially 141 Cfr. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 148; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 296; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 21, para. 93. 142 Cfr. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 5, para. 117; Case of Baldeón García, supra note 21, para. 93; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 7, para. 144. 143 Cfr. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 5, para. 117; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 7, para. 296; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 21, para. 93. 144 Cfr. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 3, para. 77; Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 3, para. 119; and Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 128, para. 79. 145 Cfr. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 5, para. 117; Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 3, para. 119; and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 148.