87. It is the opinion of this court that Respondent action of placing a freeze on the account of the Applicant is in accordance with the law and also serves a legitimate aim of protecting the public interest but, the Court notes that the Respondent has the duty to carry out a very prompt and effective investigation. 88. The duty for diligent, prompt and effective investigation is incumbent upon a state and it is not negotiable to avoid infringement upon the rights of citizens even in the face of a seemingly justified action in accordance with the law. For an investigation to qualify as effective, the Respondent must show that it took all reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident timeously. 89. In Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, judgment July 29, 1988, Inter-AM. Ct.H.R (Ser. C) No. 4 (1988) case, the Inter American Court stressed that: “The obligation to investigate must be fulfilled 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 interest 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 government. Obligation to investigate is an obligation means rather than result. Therefore once state authorities are aware of an incident, they should without delay institute an impartial and effective means to unravel the truth.” 90. Following from the above, in the circumstances of the instant case, there should be some form of a more effective investigation than done in the past five years. In the light of the Respondent’s submission before this Court, the entire investigation is characterised by inadequate and imprecise record of the steps that were taken and therefore falls short of a proper, thorough, adequate and effective investigation required by the duty incumbent upon a state to carry out diligent and prompt investigation. 91. The Court having reviewed all evidence holds that the onus of proof of legitimacy of the said $3Million lies on the Applicant and having failed to do so, is not entitled to the claim of violation of right to property and the Court so holds. 92. It is therefore the opinion of the Court, that the Respondent has been tardy in conducting prompt and effective investigations in breach of its obligations and 25