121. Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention signify that victims of human rights violations must have effective judicial remedies that are conducted in accordance with due process of law (infra para. 182). In this regard, as pertinent to the facts at issue, 134 “the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the presumed victims or their next of kin to everything necessary being done to discover the truth of what happened and to punish those eventually found responsible.” 135 Consequently, the State has an obligation to investigate the facts, which is an obligation of means and not of results; however, it must be assumed by the States as an inherent legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be useful, or as an individual measure depending on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or on the provision of probative elements by private individuals. 136 The said obligation, in relation to facts such as those that the State became aware of following the reception of the letter written by Mr. García Lucero on December 23, 1993 (supra para. 75, and infra para. 126), is stipulated in and complemented by the InterAmerican Convention against Torture that, in its Articles 1, 6 and 8, imposes the obligations “to conduct an investigation” and “to punish” in relation to acts of torture. 122. In order to meet these obligations, once the State authorities are aware of the facts, they must “open, ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation,” 137 by all available legal means, designed to determine the truth and to pursue, capture, prosecute and eventually punish all the masterminds and perpetrators of the facts, especially when State agents are or could be involved. 138 Also, as regards torture, Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture establishes that the “authorities shall proceed ex officio and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case,” when “there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within [the State’s] jurisdiction.” 123. In order to assess the State’s conduct in relation to the obligation to investigate in this case, it should be noted that the failure to investigate the facts that constitute gross human rights violations that occurred in the context of systematic patterns is especially serious, because it may reveal non-compliance with the State’s international obligations established by non-derogable norms. 139 134 In view of the characteristics of this case and the fact that, according to the report of the Valech Commission, Mr. García Lucero was a victim of torture. In this regard, the Court has maintained that the State has the obligation to investigate and to ensure the “eradication” of “gross human rights violations” such as torture (Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 134 to 136; Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 41, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, supra). Also, it has referred to the obligation to investigate illegal detention linked to acts of torture (Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 134, 136, 168, 169, 225 to 230 and 238, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, paras. 105 to 114). 135 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 155. 136 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 218. 137 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, paras. 219, 222 and 223, and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti, supra, para.107. 138 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, supra, para. 218. 139 Cf., mutatis mutandi, Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, paras. 96, 157 and 160, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No. 221, para. 183. In the first judgment cited, the Court indicated, in relation to facts that had been classified by State authorities, “and by the State’s representative before the Court as crimes against humanity,” and regarding which it had been established “that they were perpetrated in a context of 39