19 various rights and guarantees that emerge from a common value or right and that, as a whole, form a single right that is not specifically defined but whose unequivocal purpose is without a doubt to ensure everyone’s 60 right to a just process. 106. Also, both articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention “are necessary conditions for the 61 procedural institutions regulated by the Convention to be considered judicial guarantees.” Article 25(1) of the American Convention incorporates the principle, recognized in international human rights law, of the 62 effectiveness of procedural instruments or measures designed to guarantee those rights. For a remedy to exist, the Convention requires it to be truly suitable for establishing whether a violation of the rights 63 established in the Convention has taken place and for providing the necessary remedies. In this sense, the Inter-American Court has concluded that, “A remedy which proves illusory because of the general conditions prevailing in the country, or even in the particular circumstances of a given case, cannot be considered 64 effective.” 107. In this regard, inter-American case law has established that whenever a crime is committed that can be pursued ex-officio, the State has the obligation to launch and move forward with a 65 criminal proceeding. In these cases, and in addition to making other methods of reparation possible, that criminal proceeding must constitute the most appropriate method for solving the crime, bringing those responsible to trial and establishing the corresponding criminal punishments. 108. Added to that, the Court has understood that the obligation to investigate cases of violations of a right that should be protected or guaranteed derives from the general obligation to 66 guarantee human rights enshrined in the Convention, found in Article 1(1) of that document. Thus in cases of extra-judicial executions, forced disappearances and other grave human rights violations, the Tribunal has found that carrying out a serious, impartial and effective ex officio investigation without delay is a fundamental and determining element for the protection of certain rights that are affected or quashed 67 by these situations, such as the rights to personal liberty, personal safety and life. 109. In this international legal framework, it should be noted that the State’s obligation to investigate and punish violations of human rights should be undertaken seriously by States. In this respect, the Court has indicated that: In certain circumstances, it may be difficult to investigate acts that violate an individual's rights. 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. This is true regardless of what agent is eventually found 60 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Golder, Judgment of February 21, 1975, Series A, No. 18, paragraph 28, with regard to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which in its substance covers the same rights and guarantees as Article 8 of the American Convention. 61 Inter-American Court, Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, paragraph 30. 62 Inter-American Court, Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, paragraph 24. 63 Idem, paragraph 24. 64 Ibidem. 65 Inter-American Court, Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147; Inter-American Court, Case of the “Pueblo Bello Massacre.” Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140; Also see Report No. 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, Annual Report of the IACHR, 1997. 66 Cf. Case of the “Pueblo Bello Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 142; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra footnote 17, para. 88, and Case of La Cantuta, supra footnote 16, para. 110. 67 Inter-American Court. Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Judgment dated August 12, 2008, paragraph 115.