A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 and punishment remain legally or factually impossible, State must continue to undertake an effective investigation in order to disclose the factual circumstances of the disappearance. 8. The Inter-American Court stated in the Godínez Cruz Case (paragraph 188): “The duty to investigate, like the duty to prevent, is not breached merely because the investigation does not produce a satisfactory result. Nevertheless, it must be undertaken 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 government.”120 9. The Inter-American Court stated in Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador (paragraph 65): “The obligatory investigation by the State must be carried out with due diligence, because it must be effective. This implies that the investigating body must, within a reasonable time, take all necessary measures to try and obtain results.” 10. The Inter-American Court stated in González et al. (‘Cotton Field’) v. Mexico (paragraph 258): “The foregoing reveals that States should adopt comprehensive measures to comply with due diligence in cases of violence against women. In particular, they should have an appropriate legal framework for protection that is enforced effectively, and prevention policies and practices that allow effective measures to be taken in response to the respective complaints. (…) This should take into account that, in cases of violence against women, the States also have the general obligation established in the American Convention, an obligation reinforced since the Convention of Belém do Pará came into force.” 11. The Inter-American Court stated in Rochela Massacre v. Colombia (paragraph 76): “The Court deems it relevant to point out that in all cases submitted to this body, it has required that the context be taken into consideration because the political and historical context is a determinant element in the establishment of the legal consequences in a case. (…) For this reason, the analysis of the events that occurred on January 18, 1989, which the State recognized, cannot be considered separately from the context in which they took place. Likewise, their legal consequences cannot be established in a vacuum, which is what would result from their decontextualization. (Paragraph 158): In context of the facts of the present case, the principles of due diligence required that the proceedings be carried out taking into account the complexity of the facts, the context in which they occurred and the systematic patterns that explain why the events occurred. In addition, the proceedings should have ensured that there were no omissions in gathering evidence or in the development of logical lines of investigation.” 12. In the event that the body of the disappeared person was eventually found, the InterAmerican Court referred to the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions for conducting an investigation.121 13. The Human Rights Committee understands the duty to investigate in relation to Article 2(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (the right to an effective remedy), identifying the “general obligation to investigate allegations of violations promptly, thoroughly and effectively through independent and impartial bodies.”122 The Human Rights Committee also derived the duty to investigate from Articles 4(2) Optional Protocol 1 and 14(3) ICCPR.123 In relation to the case Kimouche v. Algeria, 120 121 122 123 session. Available at www.ohchr.org, p. 3; CED/C/COL/CO/1; para. 20.e); A/HRC/19/58/Add.2, para. 97. IACHR, Godínez Cruz v. Honduras, Judgment of January 20, 1989, Series C No. 5, para. 144; See IACHR, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras (see footnote 123) para. 188. IACHR, Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, (see footnote 127) paragraph 177, referring to the United Nations Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extralegal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions, see E/ST/CSDHA/12 (1991); the IACHR concluded in relation to the Juan Humberto-Sánchez Case, that the investigation did not satisfy all the measures by The UN Manual; see IACHR, Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of June 7, 2003, Series C No. 99, para. 127. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 15. Human Rights Committee, Bleier v. Uruguay, communication No. R.7/30, 29 March 1982, para. 13.3. 23