96 and real psychological harm, consisting in psychotic or similar episodes, characterized especially by intermittent persecutory delusions that required her internment in a psychiatric ward. These considerations allow the Court to conclude that the victim was harmed as a result of being deprived of the possibility of obtaining a judgment. B.3 Determination of the scope of the State’s international responsibility owing to the criminal proceedings 315. In its consistent case law, the Court has indicated that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results that must be assumed by the State as an inherent legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a measure taken by private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin or on the contribution of probative elements by private individuals.390 In addition, due diligence requires that the investigating agency should take all the steps and make all the inquiries necessary to achieve the result pursued. To the contrary, the investigation is ineffective in the terms of the Convention.391 316. The Court considers that the State had the obligation to act with due diligence and to adopt the pertinent measures to avoid delays in the processing of the proceedings, and to ensure the prompt settlement of the case in order to prevent the facts remaining unpunished, as occurred in this case. However, on examining the State’s actions during the criminal proceedings conducted into the facts, the Court finds that a series of obstacles and flaws were verified that undermined the effectiveness of the proceedings and resulted in a declaration that the criminal action had extinguished after four years had passed without a final decision. First, the Court notes that, on four separate occasions, it was not possible to constitute the court that was supposed to hold the oral trial (supra paras. 95, 97, 98 and 99), thereby delaying the proper progress of the proceedings. This was because the candidates for the posts of lay judges had not received notification or because, on the day that the court was supposed to be constituted, an insufficient number of citizens came forward to constitute the court jury. In the Court’s opinion, this reveals a systemic problem because, although this situation had been verified in this case, it was repeated in different jurisdictions. Also, on another occasion, the defense counsel and the prosecutor established that the lay judges had been elected improperly and this resulted in a criminal complaint for malfeasance against one of the judges392 (supra para. 96). Lastly, it is noticeable that, on two occasions, convictions were struck down owing to procedural flaws; once for a deficient action of the court itself when recording the proceedings of the oral trial, and the other when delivering the judgment (supra paras. 94 and 102). In conclusion, the Court considers that the authorities failed to ensure that I.V. had effective access to justice to remedy the violations of her rights. 317. The Court reiterates that the ineffectiveness of the judicial system in individual cases of violence against women promotes a culture of impunity that facilitates and encourages the repetition of acts of violence, in general, and sends a message that violence against women may be tolerated and accepted, and this leads to its perpetuation and the social acceptance of the phenomenon, to the feeling and sensation of insecurity for women, and also to their persistent lack of confidence in the system for the administration of justice.393 This ineffectiveness or indifference constitutes, in Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 161. 390 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 Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 143. 391 Cf. Brief requesting the annulment of the constitution of the lay court of April 15, 2003 (evidence file, volume X, annex 26 to the answering brief, folio 3702), and Brief submitted by Dr. Raúl Gaston Huaylla Rivera, Technical Judge of the First Trial Court, in the case FIS No. 894, of May 9, 2003 (evidence file, volume VII, annex 29 to the submission of the case, folio 2209). 392 393 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, supra, paras. 388 and 400, and Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v.