44 deprivation of freedom with the objective of causing their forced disappearance, if the victim itself cannot access the recourses available, it is fundamental that the next or kin or other people close to him be able to access prompt and effective proceedings or judicial recourses as means to determine their whereabouts or state of health or to individualize the authority that ordered the deprivation of freedom or made it effective.128 142. In this regard, pursuant with Article I, subparagraphs a) and b), of the CIDFP, the States Parties undertake to not practice or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons under any circumstance and to punish those responsible within the realm of their jurisdiction. This is in accordance with the State’s obligation to respect and guarantee the rights included in Article 1(1) of the Convention, which as has been established by this Court, can be fulfilled in different ways, in function of the specific right the State shall guarantee and of the specific needs of protection.129 In that sense, this obligation implies the duty of the States Party to organize all the structures through which the exercise of public power is expressed, in a way such that they are capable of legally guaranteeing the free and full exercise of human rights.130 As part of that obligation, the State is in the juridical duty to “[r]easonably prevent human rights violations and to seriously investigate with the means within its reach the violations committed within its jurisdiction in order to identify those responsible, impose upon them the appropriate punishments and guarantee the victim an adequate reparation.”131 143. In definitive, any time there are reasonable motives to suspect that a person has been submitted to forced disappearance an investigation shall be started.132 This obligation exists regardless of the filing of a complaint, since in cases of forced disappearance international law and the general duty to guarantee, impose the obligation to investigate the case ex officio, without delay, and in a serious, impartial, and effective manner. This is a fundamental and conditioning element for the protection of certain rights affected by these situations, such as personal freedom, the right to humane treatment, and to life.133 Without detriment of the aforementioned, in any case, all state authorities, public officials, or individuals who have received news about acts destined to the forced disappearance of persons, shall denounce them immediately.134 The obligation to investigate persists until the person deprived of liberty or his remains are found. 128 Cf. obligation referred to in Article X of the CIDFP. Likewise, the Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 64. 129 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paras. 111 and 113; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 56, para. 298, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 62. 130 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 24, para. 166; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 137, and Case of Anzualdo Castro, v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 62. 131 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 24, para. 174; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 62. 132 Cf. Article 12(2) of the International Convention for the protection of all persons against forced disappearance and Article 13 of the Declaration on the protection of all persons against forced disappearances. Additionally, the Declaration and Action Program of Vienna approved by the Global Human Rights Conference on June 25, 1993, establishes that: “[a]ll the States are compelled, under any circumstance, to start an investigation as long as there are motives to believe that a forced disappearance has occurred within a territory subject to its jurisdiction and, if the accusations are confirmed, prosecute the authors of the facts” (para. 62). 133 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 145 and Case of Anzualdo Castro, v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 65. 134 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 65.