40 authorities must adopt reasonable measures that allow them to secure evidentiary material needed for 178 the investigation. 217. While the duty to investigate is a duty of means, and not of results, it must be assumed 179 by the State as its own legal duty, and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective , not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their 180 offer of proof. 218. As for the guarantee of reasonable time, the Court has established that it is necessary to take into consideration three elements in order to determine the reasonableness of the time: (a) the complexity of the matter, (b) the procedural activity of the interested party, and (c) the conduct of the 181 judicial authorities. In more recent cases the Court has included as a fourth element the effects that the 182 delay in the process can have for the legal situation of the victim. 219. In view of the above-noted precedents, the Commission will analyze whether, in the instant case, the State of El Salvador conducted a serious and diligent investigation, in a reasonable time, on the forced disappearance of the victims as a mechanism for ensuring the victims’ rights, and to ensure the rights to truth, justice, and reparation for their next-of-kin. 1. With respect to José Adrián Rochac Hernández 220. The Commission has considered as proven that with respect to what happened to José Adrián Rochac Hernández, three domestic proceedings were initiated. The first was a proceeding before the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson; the second an investigation by the Public Ministry; and the third, a habeas corpus action before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. 221. The proceeding before the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson culminated by resolution of September 7, 2004, which recommended to the Public Ministry that it investigate his disappearance, along with that of 136 other children. The second proceeding was initiated in the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, and as of the date of the presentation of the petition there was no information as to steps or measures aimed at finding José Adrián Rochac. The habeas corpus proceeding, the third proceeding initiated, was rejected, with notice given March 11, 2003; the main argument for the rejection was the absence of records on the child in army facilities. 222. The Commission notes that his disappearance was a public fact as of at least May 31, 1996, the date on which the Asociación Pro-Búsqueda presented to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson the case of the disappearance of José Adrián Rochac Hernández. Despite this, it was not until August 2003 that the first investigative steps were taken by the Public Ministry to establish the facts; nonetheless there is no information whatsoever on any subsequent impetus or results of this investigation. 178 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 122. 179 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 131; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al.. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 120. 180 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 120. 181 I/A Court H.R., Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 72; I/A Court H.R., Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006 Series C No. 162, para. 102. 182 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196; I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192.