151. The Court has found that the States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).109 152. Thus, the Court has held that the obligation to investigate entails that, as soon as the State authorities become aware of the facts, they must initiate, ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation by all lawful means available in order to determine the truth and to ensure the pursuit, capture, trial, and eventual punishment, if applicable, of all the authors of the facts,110 especially when State agents are or may be involved.111 The duty to investigate is one of means, not results, that must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or simply as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof.112 The State’s obligation to investigate must be fulfilled diligently in order to avoid impunity and the recurrence of this type of event.113 153. The Court has established the obligation of the State to investigate the facts while there is uncertainty about the fate of the person who has disappeared, and the need to provide a simple and prompt recourse in the case, with due guarantees114 The Commission recalls in this regard that states must guarantee the right of the victim or his or her next of kin to the truth through an investigation and trial, as envisaged in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.115 154. Finally, the right to know the truth has also been recognized by several treaties of the United Nations and recently, by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS).116 For its part, the Inter-American Court has considered the content of the right to the truth in its case-law, especially in cases of forced disappearances. In the case of Velásquez Rodríguez the Court confirmed the existence of “the right to inform the relatives of the fate of the victims and, if they were killed, the location of their remains.”117 In this type of cases, it is considered that the relatives of the disappeared victims are victims of the 109 I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C, No. 1, para. 91; Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C, No. 271, par. 97; and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C, No. 281, par. 215. 110 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 1, para. 177; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C, No. 277, par. 183. 111 I/A Court H.R., Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C, No. 101, par. 156; and Case of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C, No. 270, par. 371, 112I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 1, para. 177; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C, No. 277, par.183. 113 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C, No. 148, para. 402; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C, No. 277, par. 183; and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C, No. 281, par. 216. 114 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C, No. 70, para. 197. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 163, par. 147. 115 116 Set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity (E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1). Report of the independent expert to update the Set of Principles to combat impunity, Diane Orentlicher (E/CN.4/2005/102, 18 February 2005. Study by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to the truth (E/CN.4/1998/16, 9 January 2006. OAS General Assembly, Resolutions on the Right to the Truth, AG/RES. 2175 (XXXVI-O/06), AG/RES. 2267 (XXXVIIO/ 2267, and AG/RES. 2406 (XXXVIII-O/08). 117 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 181.