67 that such action does not depend on the procedural initiative of the victim or his next of kin or on the provision of evidence by private individuals. 244 222. In this regard, the Court has indicated that the authorities must conduct the investigation as an inherent legal obligation, and not leave this to the initiative of the next of kin. 245 This is a basic and determinant element for the protection of the rights affected by such situations. 246 Consequently, the investigation should be conducted using all available legal means for the purpose of discovering the truth and achieving the pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of all the masterminds and perpetrators of the acts, especially when State agents are or could be implicated. 247 Likewise, impunity must be eliminated by the establishment of both the general (State) and individual responsibilities, of a criminal and any other nature, of its agents or of private individuals. 248 In compliance with this obligation, the State must remove all obstacles, de facto and de jure, that maintain impunity. 249 223. In this case, the Court has already established that on July 8, 1991, the Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention of Huancavelica received complaints from Zósimo Hilario Quispe regarding the detention and disappearance of his family members, and from Nicolás Hilario Morán, president of the Administrative Council of the community of Santa Bárbara, regarding the abduction and disappearance of fourteen community members. Mr. Hilario Morán also requested that a visual inspection be carried out at the site of the events. On July 9 and 12, the Prosecutor’s Office received complaints filed by Viviano Hilario Mancha regarding the events that occurred to his family members (supra paras. 95 to 98). According to Report No. 17-91-FPEPD-Hvca of August 2, 1991, in response to these complaints, the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crime Prevention of Huancavelica carried out the following actions: 250 i) on July 8, 1991, it ordered a verification procedure at the Departmental Headquarters of the Technical Police. There is no record as to whether this was carried out. It also sent an official letter to the Headquarters of the Political and Military Command requesting information on the patrols carried out on July 4. This request was reiterated fourteen days later, on July 22, 1991; ii) it sent an official letter on July 10, 1991 to the Political and Military Chief of Ayacucho, in order to inform him about the complaint and ask if the detainees had been taken to the Lircay Military Base; iii) it received the complaints and/or statements of six other persons, namely: Teodoro Hilario Quispe, Cecilia Mancha de Cusi, Bertha Lizana widow of Hilario, Gaudencia Quispe de Hilario, Gregorio Hilario Quispe and Alejandro Huamaní. On July 15, 1991, the latter reported the detention and disappearance of his son, Elihoref Huamaní. In addition, complaints were received from Nicolás Hilario Morán, Lorenzo Quispe Huamán and Máximo Pérez Torres, stating that they had been threatened by a Lieutenant of the Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 475. 245 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 488. 246 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of 31 January 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 145, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 488. 247 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra, para. 156, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 488. 248 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 131, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 488. 249 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra, para. 277, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 488. 250 Cf. Report No. 17-91-FPEPD-Hvca issued by the Provincial Office of the Special Prosecutor for Crime Prevention of August 2, 1991 (evidence file, folios 3894 to 3898). 244