67 and the corresponding responsibilities, through the investigation and prosecution provided for in articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.377 290. The duty to investigate is one of means, and not results, but must be undertaken by the State as its own legal obligation, and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.378 The investigation must be carried out with the necessary diligence and be an effective, serious and impartial investigation379 conducted within a reasonable period of time.380 Thus, the presence of acts that obstruct justice, procedural hurdles or problems created by a lack of cooperation on the part of the authorities that have thwarted or are thwarting a resolution of the case, are a violation of the right to judicial guarantees. The IACHR recalls that the obligation to investigate and punish any act that involves a violation of Convention-protected rights requires punishment of not just the material authors of the human rights violations, but also their intellectual authors.381 291. As for the situation in the wake of the armed conflict in Guatemala, the IACHR recalls that in the Peace Accords signed by the State, the latter asserted the following: The Guatemalan people are entitled to know the full truth about the human rights violations and acts of violence that occurred in the context of the internal armed conflict. Shedding light objectively and impartially on what happened will contribute to the process of national 382 reconciliation and democratization in the country. 292. Accordingly, in following up on the human rights situation after the Peace Accords were signed, the IACHR documented the following: A key aspect of the accords, identified as a critical failure of the past and a priority challenge for the present and the future, is the requirement that justice be done and be seen to be done. The State acknowledges that the systems for public security and the administration of justice are gravely deficient. Among the problems identified by the State itself are abusive and arbitrary action by the police forces; the lack of institutional capacity to investigate and prosecute crime, 377 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par.78; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par.150; and Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163, par.147. 378 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par.177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par.131. 379 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, par.101; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, par.146; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par.130. 380 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, par.114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163, par.146; I/A Court H.R., Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, par.382. 381 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, March 7, 2006, par.109; Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas, December 31, 2011, par.237. 382 Agreement for a Firm and Lasting Peace, Guatemala City, December 29, 1996, point 4.