A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 actions, which resulted in the issuing of an international arrest warrant. 144 Despite the absence of a conviction of alleged perpetrators numerous years after the disappearance, the Court considered the investigative steps undertaken by relevant authorities as sincere and thorough efforts in order to disclose the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared and to seek accountability of alleged perpetrators. The Court held that the State complied with its procedural obligations under Article 2 ECHR. 30. The European Court stated in Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (paragraph 65): “In these circumstances, the Court finds that the domestic criminal investigation was effective in the sense that it was capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible for the disappearance and death of Mr Palić, notwithstanding the fact that there have not yet been any convictions in this connection. The procedural obligation under Article 2 is indeed not an obligation of result, but of means.” 31. Although the duty to investigate is an obligation of means, it has been asserted that in relation to the State’s duty towards family members of a victim of enforced disappearances to fully establish his or her whereabouts, this obligation has evolved towards entailing a result-orientated component.145 If the duty to investigate were not to be construed as an obligation of result, the cruel and inhuman treatment of the disappeared person’s family continues, violating article 7 ICCPR.146 32. The Human Rights Committee stated in the case Kimouche v. Algeria (paragraph 9): “[T]hat while the Covenant does not give individuals the right to demand the criminal prosecution of another person, the Committee nevertheless considers the State party dutybound not only to conduct thorough investigations into alleged violations of human rights, particularly enforced disappearances and infringements of the right to life, but also to prosecute, try and punish the culprits.”147 33. The Inter-American Court has held that an effective investigation has to have an objective in line with the logic behind the investigation, such as identifying the location of disappeared persons and their remains, determining the truth and ending impunity.148 States are obliged to carry out an effective investigation with the view to establishing the truth about the circumstances of the disappearance and the fate and whereabouts of those disappeared. This obligation is separate from the objective of prosecution. 149 However, while the Inter-American Court has indicated that the duty to investigate is one of means, not of outcome, it has stressed that the duty to investigate should be assumed by the State as a legal obligation in and of itself and not as a simple formality condemned from the onset to be unsuccessful, or a matter of particular interests, which depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin.150 34. The Inter-American Court has also reiterated that the passage of time bears a directly proportionate relationship to the limitation – and in some case, the impossibility – of obtaining evidence and/or testimony, making it difficult and even useless or ineffective, to carry out probative measures in order to clarify the facts that are being investigated, to identify the possible authors and participants, and to establish the eventual criminal 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 European Court of Human Rights, Palić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Application No. 4704/04, 15 February 2011, para. 65. See the contribution made by Fundación para la Justicia y el Estado Democrático de Derecho and TRIAL International, para. 9; Human Rights Committee, Cifuentes Elgueta v. Chile, communication No. 1536/2006, individual opinion of Committee members Ms. Helen Keller and Mr. Fabián Salvioli (dissenting), para. 26. See the contribution made by Fundación para la Justicia y el Estado Democrático de Derecho and TRIAL International, para. 9. Human Rights Committee, Kimouche v. Algeria (see footnote 139) para. 9. IACHR, Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras (see footnote 123), para. 181; IACHR, The Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia (see footnote 127) para. 143. IACHR, Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras (see footnote 123) para. 177. See IACHR, Tenorio Roca y otros Vs. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of 22 June 2016. Serie C No. 314. 27