61 formality predestined to be ineffective.79 Moreover, this effective search for the truth is the State’s responsibility, and decidedly does not depend upon the initiative of victims and their family members or upon their submission of evidence.80 147. During the investigative process and judicial proceedings, the Tribunal has asserted that victims of human rights violations, or their family members, must have ample opportunities to participate and be heard, as much in the clarification of facts and the punishment of responsible parties, as in their pursuit of due compensation.81 Indeed, the Court has established that victims of rights violations and their family members have a right to know the truth regarding those violations – that is, to be informed about the relevant facts and the responsible parties.82 Therefore, the Moiwana community members have the following rights: to have the deaths and violations to personal integrity occurring in 1986 effectively investigated by state authorities, to have those responsible for the unlawful acts prosecuted and appropriately punished, and to receive compensation for damages and injuries suffered.83 b) The effectiveness of the official investigation in the instant case 148. Thus, in response to the extrajudicial killings that occurred on November 29, 1986, the foremost remedy provided should have been an effective, state-sponsored investigation and judicial process, leading to the clarification of the facts, punishment of the responsible parties, and appropriate compensation. In order to judge the effectiveness of the State’s investigation in the present case, the Court will consider whether the official efforts were conducted with due diligence.84 149. In this regard, the Tribunal has previously specified the basic guidelines to follow subsequent to a death suspected to have been an extrajudicial execution. At a minimum, state authorities conducting an inquiry shall seek, inter alia: a) to identify the victim; b) to recover and preserve evidentiary material related to the death in order to aid in any potential prosecution of those responsible; c) to identify possible witnesses and obtain statements from them concerning the death; d) to determine the cause, manner, location and time of death, as well as any pattern or practice that may have brought about the death; and e) to distinguish between 79 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 61; Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 112; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 78, para. 144. 80 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 61; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 75, para. 184; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 79, para. 112. 81 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 63; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 75, para. 186; and Case of Las Palmeras, supra note 75, para. 59. 82 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 62; Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 128; and Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations (Art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 19, 2004. Series C No. 116, para. 97. 83 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 64; Case of 19 Merchants, supra note 75, para. 187; and Case of Las Palmeras, supra note 75, para. 59. 84 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 65; Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., supra note 82, para. 129; and Case of Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 82, para. 98.