84 members or on the contribution of evidence by private individuals. 396 The investigation must be serious, impartial and effective, and be aimed at determining the truth and the pursuit, capture, prosecution and eventual punishment of the perpetrators of the facts. 397 The said obligation remains “whosoever the agent to whom the violation may eventually be attributed, even private individuals, because if their acts are not investigated correctly, they would, to a certain extent, be aided by the public authorities, which would engage the international responsibility of the State.” 398 Moreover, due diligence requires that the body conducting the investigation take all the actions and make all the inquiries required to achieve the result sought. To the contrary, the investigation is not effective in the terms of the Convention. 399 239. In particular, under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the obligation to ensure the rights recognized in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention entails the State’s duty to investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 400 This obligation to investigate is enhanced by the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture that oblige the States “to take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction,” as well as “to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In addition, pursuant to Article 8 of that Convention, States Parties “shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case. In addition, if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal proceedings.” 240. In this regard, it is essential that States act diligently to avoid alleged acts of torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, taking into account, moreover, that the victims usually abstain from denouncing the facts, due to fear, especially when they are deprived of liberty in the custody of the State. In addition, the judicial authorities have the obligation to ensure the rights of all those deprived of liberty, which entails obtaining and preserving any evidence that may substantiate alleged acts of torture. 401 241. The Court also recalls that, in cases of violence against women, the general obligations established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention are complemented and enhanced by the obligations derived from the specific inter-American treaty, the Convention of Belém do Pará, for those States that are party to it. Article 7(b) of that Convention specifically obliges the States Parties to apply due diligence to prevent, investigate, punish and eradicate violence 396 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 200. 397 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 200. 398 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 200. 399 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 83, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 200. 400 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 147, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 341. 401 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 135, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 234.