53 3. Considerations of the Court 145. The Court has established that the right of access to justice requires that the facts investigated and, as appropriate, the corresponding criminal responsibilities be determined effectively within a reasonable period of time. Hence, given the need to guarantee the rights of those who have been prejudiced, a prolonged delay may, in itself, constitute a violation of judicial guarantees.228 The Court has also indicated that the State bodies responsible for investigating the forced disappearance of persons in order to determine the whereabouts of those persons and clarify what happened, identify those responsible, and punish them, must perform their tasks diligently and exhaustively.229 It is opportune to recall that, in cases of forced 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.230 In this case, that obligation was reinforced by the fact that the victims were children at the time of the facts, some of them in their infancy, so that the State had the obligation to ensure they were found as soon as possible. The legal rights involved in the investigation make it obligatory to redouble efforts as regards the measures that must be taken to fulfill this objective, because the passage of time has a directly proportionate relationship to the limitations to – and, in some cases, the impossibility of - obtaining evidence and/or testimony, making it difficult and even rendering ineffective or invalid, the probative measures taken in order to elucidate the facts investigated,231 identify the possible authors and participants, and determine possible criminal responsibilities. Despite the foregoing, national authorities are not exempt from making all necessary efforts to comply with their obligation to investigate.232 If the State bodies proceed in an omissive or negligent manner, this is not compatible with the obligations arising from the American Convention; particularly if essential human rights are at stake.233 Thus, the States must provide the corresponding authorities with the necessary logistic and scientific resources to collect and process evidence and, in particular, with the authority to access pertinent documentation and information to investigate the facts denounced and to obtain indications or evidence of the whereabouts of the victims.234 146. In addition, in cases such as this one, the Court has found that the authorities in charge of the investigation have the obligation to ensure that, during its course, they assess systematic patterns that allow the perpetration of grave human rights violations,235 such as those committed in this case. In order to guarantee its effectiveness, the investigation must 228 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 142 to 145; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 100, para. 152, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 98, para. 196. 229 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 100, para. 173. 230 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 109, para. 134; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 100, para. 167, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 25, para. 215. 231 Cf. Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 112, para. 150; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 100, para. 167, and Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 98, para. 196. 232 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro, supra note 109, para. 135; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 100, para. 167, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra nota 25, para. 215. 233 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 100, para. 173. 234 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín, supra note 18, para. 77; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 100, para. 168 and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 25, para. 222. 235 Cf. Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 156; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 100, para. 166, and Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 25, para. 206.