9 28. That the representatives appreciated the two charges made against police officials allegedly responsible for the events related to the unlawful detention of Mr. Uzcátegui. However, they noted that, six years after the provisional measures were granted for the benefit of Mr. Uzcátegui, the investigations in place have not led to a definitive finding on the multiple acts of harassment and intimidation that were duly reported. Moreover, they indicated that a) In spite of the criminal charges against the three police officials, these persons are still at large, no administrative measure has been taken against them, and they continue to work at the State of Falcón Police Department; b) On February 14, 2008, Mr. Uzcátegui received a summons to appear at the Headquarters of the State of Falcón Police Department to be interviewed by a police officer regarding the alleged assaults perpetrated against him in January 2008 (supra para. 14). The representatives expressed their “concern over [said] summons [b]y the State of Falcón Police Department, as this is the police force involved in the death of his brother", and requested the High Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Falcón to entrust the necessary steps to the “Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas [Scientific, Criminal and Criminalistic Investigations Force - CICPC],” and c) The undue delay in the investigations, the constant postponing of the hearings due to the absence of the defendants, their attorneys and the Public Prosecutor’s Office are factors that show an obstruction to the quest for justice for the beneficiary and his next of kin. 29. That, in general terms, in the observations submitted 2005 through 2008, the Commission stated that “the best measure of protection for the beneficiary is a serious, effective and efficient investigation that will cast light on the reported facts so as to establish responsibility therefor. It is the Commission’s view that this type of investigation is the perfect instrument to guarantee the identification and elimination of risk of irreparable harm and an instrument appropriate to prevent the future occurrence of similar events.” 30. That, “the investigation of the facts and the punishment of the people responsible, […] is an obligation that corresponds to the State every time there is a violation of human rights and that obligation must be complied with seriously.”7 Also, the Court has established that such obligation is not to be taken as a mere advancing of private interests dependent upon the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin or the private contribution of evidence.8 31. That the Court has held that the State’s alleged failure to investigate does not necessarily, by itself, amount to a situation of extreme gravity and urgency warranting 7 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; Case of García-Prieto et al. V. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 100, and Case of Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 69. 8 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 7, para. 177; Case of Albán-Cornejo et al. V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C. No. 171, para. 62, and Case of Tiu Tojín, supra note 7, para. 84.