43 It is evident from Article 8 of the Convention that the victims of human rights violations or their next of kin should have substantial possibilities of being heard and acting in the respective proceedings, 190 both in order to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation. 203. The Inter-American Court has ruled that victims and their next-of-kin have the right to expect – and the State, the obligation to ensure – that what befell the alleged victims will be investigated effectively by the State authorities, that proceedings will be filed against those allegedly responsible for the unlawful acts, and, if applicable, the pertinent penalties will be imposed, and the losses suffered by 191 the next of kin repaired According to the above, the State’s authorities, once apprised of a violation of 192 human rights – in particular of the right to life, humane treatment, or personal liberty – have the duty of 193 initiating, without delay and on an ex officio basis, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation, 194 which must be completed within a reasonable time. 204. Regarding the duty of conducting an investigation “with due diligence,” the Inter-American Court has ruled that this means that inquiries must be pursued through all legal means available and 195 must be oriented toward the determination of the truth. The Court has further ruled that the State has the duty of ensuring that all steps necessary to learn the truth about what happened and for those 196 197 responsible to be punished are carried out, involving all institutions of the State in that undertaking. 205. Similarly, the Inter-American Commission has maintained that: A breach of the State’s obligation of investigating does not occur simply because no one has been convicted or because, in spite of the efforts made, it was impossible to establish the facts. However, in order to establish in a convincing and credible manner that this result was not the product of a mechanical implementation of certain procedural formalities without the State genuinely seeking the truth, the State must show that it carried out an immediate, exhaustive, and 198 impartial investigation. 206. Although the obligation of investigating is an obligation of means and not of results, it must be undertaken by the State as its own legal duty, and not as a mere formality preordained to be 190 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Prieto et al., Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, para. 102; The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. 63, paragraph 227; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of March 1, 2005, Series C No. 120, para. 63. 191 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Prieto et al., Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, para. 103; Case of Bulacio, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C No. 100, para. 114; and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 382. 192 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. 100. 193 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Prieto et al., Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, para. 101; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, Judgment of July 8, 2004, Series C No. 110, para. 146; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 10, 2007, Series C No. 167, para. 130. 194 I/A Court H. R., Case of Bulacio, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C No. 100, para. 114; Case of the La Rochela Massacre, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C. No. 163, para. 146; and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160 para. 382. 195 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Prieto et al., Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, para. 101. 196 I/A Court H. R., Case of Bulacio, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C No. 100, para. 114; Case of the La Rochela Massacre , Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C. No. 163, para. 146; and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160 para. 382. 197 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. 130; Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 120; and Case of Huilca Tecse, Judgment of March 3, 2005, Series C No. 121, para. 66. 198 IACHR, Report No. 33/04, Case 11.634, Merits, Jailton Neri Fonseca, Brazil, March 11, 2004, para. 97.