133. The Court has stated that States are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of rights violations (Article 25), which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process (Article 8(1)), all within the general duty, undertaken by the States, to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).94 134. Therefore, the Court has identified that the duty to investigate implies that once State authorities are aware of the act, they must initiate ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation through all the available legal means and oriented to determine the truth and the prosecution, capture, trial and eventual punishment of all the authors of the act,95 especially when there are or there may be involvement of state agents.96 This obligation is a duty of means and not of results, that must be undertaken by the State as its own legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a result of private interests, that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof.97 The duty of the State to investigate must be diligently fulfilled to avoid impunity and the repetition of these types of acts.98 135. Furthermore, in relation to due diligence during the investigation, the Inter-American Court has stated 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.”99 In this regard, the State must demonstrate it has undertaken an immediate, exhaustive, serious and impartial investigation,100 which must be aimed at exploring all the possible lines of inquiry.101 The State may be responsible if the evidence is not “ordered, practiced or evaluated,” which could be very important for the adequate clarification of the facts.102 136. On the other hand, Article 8(1) of the American Convention states, as one of the elements of due process, that tribunals shall decide the cases submitted within a reasonable time. According to the terms of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 167. See also Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Resolution of the Court of February 1, 2010, Consideration thirteen, and Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Resolution of the Court of August 29, 2013. Consideration six. 94 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Exceptions. 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 Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 215. 95 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 177; and Case of Veliz Franco et al v. Guatemala. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 96 I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chan v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment 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 Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 371. 97 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 177; and Case of Veliz Franco et al v. Guatemala. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 98 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 Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183; Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 216. 99 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 131. 100 IACHR, Report on the Merits, No. 55/97, Juan Carlos Abella (Argentina), November 18, 1997, para. 412. IACHR, Report No. 25/09 Merits (Sebastião Camargo Filho) Brazil, March 19, 2009, para. 109. See also, IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, para. 41. 101 102 I/A Court H.R. Case of the "Street Children " (Villagran-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 230. See also, IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007, para. 41. 23