From Article 8 of the Convention it is evident that the victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin should have substantial possibilities to be heard and to act in the respective proceedings, both to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation.173 193. As the IACHR has indicated, the State has the following obligation: “Each State act that composes the investigation proceeding, and the entire investigation in itself, should be oriented at a specific purpose: the determination of the truth and the investigation, finding, arrest, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the events.”174 194. Accordingly, the Court has noted that the obligation to investigate implies that once the state authorities learn of the fact, they must begin, at their own initiative and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation by all legal means available and aimed at determining the truth, and at pursuing, arresting, prosecuting, and eventually punishing all the perpetrators of such acts175, especially when state agents are or may be involved.176 This duty is an obligation of means and not of results that must be assumed by the state as its own legal duty, and not as a mere formality doomed beforehand to be fruitless, or as a mere initiative of private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their family members, or the private production of evidence.177 The state’s duty to investigate must be carried out diligently to avoid impunity, and to prevent the recurrence of such acts.178 195. The Inter-American Court has established that for a remedy to be effective it does not suffice for it to be provided for by the Constitution or by statute, or that it be formally admissible, but rather it must be suitable to establish whether there has been a human rights violation and provide as necessary to remedy it.179 196. It follows that if one of the objectives of forced disappearance is to impede the exercise of the relevant legal remedies and procedural guarantees, when a person is subjected to a detention, kidnapping, or any form of deprivation of liberty with the objective of bringing about his or her forced disappearance, if the very victim cannot accede to available remedies, it is fundamental that the family members or persons close to them can accede to swift and effective judicial procedures or remedies to determine his or her 173 I/A Court HR, Case of García Prieto et al.. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168. Para. 102; I/A Court HR, Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. Para. 227; and I/A Court HR, Case of Serrano Cruz Sisters. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, Para. 63. 174 IACHR, Report No. 85/13, Case of 12,251, Admissibility and Merits, Vereda la Esperanza, Colombia, November 4, 2013, para. 242. I/A Court HR, Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 101. 175 I/A Court HR. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 177; and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 176 I/A Court HR. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 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, para. 371. 177I/A Court HR. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 177; and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 178 I/A Court HR. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006, Series C. No. 148, para. 319; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183; and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para., 216. 179 I/A Court HR. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 61; Case of “Five Pensioners.” Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 136, and Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Community of Awas Tingni. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 113.