humane treatment established in Article 5.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof, to the detriment of Patricio Fernando Roche Azaña. B. 1. Rights to a fair trial, judicial protection, and humane treatment (Articles 8,65 25.1,66 and 5.1), in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention General considerations 60. The Court has held that the States have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8.1), all in keeping with the States’ general obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1.1).67 The guarantees of Article 8.1 protect the right of the accused to due process and also safeguard the rights of access to justice of the victim of a crime or his or her next of kin, and the right of the next of kin to know the truth.68 61. Both the IACHR and the Court have established that in cases involving extrajudicial executions, the State has the duty to undertake a serious, impartial, and effective investigation, ex officio and without delay.69 Along this same line of precedents related to deaths involving agents of the State, “[the] investigation must be conducted using all available legal means to determine the truth and to investigate, prosecute and punish all those responsible for the facts, especially when State agents are or may be involved.”70 Thus, the duty to investigate must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, and it must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests.71 The IACHR also calls to mind that the obligation to investigate and punish every act that entails a violation of rights protected by the Convention requires that not only the direct perpetrators of human rights violations be punished, but also the masterminds.72 62. Case law has also established that in cases involving deprivation of the right to life where there may be contradictory accounts, beyond ensuring that certain evidentiary steps are followed, “due diligence in the investigation must be evaluated in connection with the need to determine the veracity of the versions of events considered in the context of the proceedings, in other words, whether it was possible to obtain judicial clarification about what happened and eventual legal characterization of the facts consistent with the events in question.”73 Article 8 of the American Convention establishes the following, in the pertinent section: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 66 Article 25 of the American Convention establishes the following, in the pertinent section: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 67 I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 97; and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 215. 68 I/A Court H.R. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018, para. 218. 69 IACHR. Report No. 41/15, Cases 12.335, 12. 336, 12. 757, 12.711. Merits. Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán et al. Colombia. July 28, 2015, para. 195; and I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 219. 70 I/A Court H.R. Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260, para. 218. See also: Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 177, and Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, para. 157. 71 I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 6, para. 177. 72 IACHR. Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 5 rev.1, March 7, 2006, para. 109. Also: I/A Court H.R. Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31,2001. Series C No. 71, para. 123; I/A Court H.R. Case of Blake v. Guatemala, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 22, 1999, Series C No. 48, para. 65. 73 I/A Court H.R. Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2015. Series S No. 306, para. 143. 65