53 in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective. An investigation must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government41. 227. Moreover, 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, both in order to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation. 228. If we confront the facts in this case with the foregoing, we can observe that Guatemala conducted various judicial proceedings on the facts. However, it is clear that those responsible have not been punished, because they have not been identified or penalized by judicial decisions that have been executed. This consideration alone is enough to conclude that the State has violated Article 1.1 of the Convention, since it has not punished the perpetrators of the corresponding crimes. In this respect, there is no point in discussing whether the defendants in the domestic proceedings should be acquitted or not. What is important is that, independently of whether or not they were the perpetrators of the unlawful acts, the State should have identified and punished those who were responsible, and it did not do so. 229. In the file there are many records which reveal that the judicial authorities who conducted the proceedings deriving from the abduction, torture and homicide of Henry Giovanni Contreras, Julio Roberto Caal Sandoval, Jovito Josué Juárez Cifuentes and Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez, and the homicide of Anstraum Aman Villagrán Morales, failed in their duty to encourage an adequate investigation and judicial proceeding that would lead to the punishment of those responsible, and affected the right of the victims’ next of kin42 to be heard and to have their accusations discussed by an independent and impartial tribunal. 230. In this respect, the Court observes that the domestic judicial proceedings revealed two types of serious defect: first, investigation of the crimes of abduction and torture was completely omitted (supra, para. 66.b). Second, evidence that could have been very important for the due clarification of the homicides was not ordered, practiced or evaluated (supra, paras. 104-121). 231. With regard to the elucidation of the murders, it should be emphasized that, for example, the autopsies were incomplete and were performed inadequately from a technical standpoint; the fingerprints of the corpses were not taken or preserved, and they were not photographed full length; personal identification by witnesses of one of those accused of the murders was not ordered; alleged eye witnesses of the events, mentioned by other witnesses, were not summoned to make statements; no dental expert appraisal was ordered to determine if one of the defendants had a particular characteristic that was described by various witnesses; there was no reconstruction of the facts relating to the murder of Anstraum Aman Villagrán 41. Godínez Cruz case, supra note 12, para. 188 and Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 12, para. 177. 42 Cf. Loayza Tamayo case. Reparations (Article 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 92.