39 Specially, it claimed that the State failed to conduct investigations and procedures “sufficiently diligent to determine the whereabouts or the responsible.” The representatives emphasized that “the domestic proceedings have not provided effective recourse to ensure the next-of-kin access to justice and […] full reparation in the instant case.” The State claimed that “it is not responsible for the violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial guarantees” of Mr. Anzualdo Castro and his relatives. 122. The Court has established that States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Art. 1(1))146. 123. In order for a criminal investigation to be an effective recourse in order to ensure the right to access to justice of the alleged victims, as well as to guarantee the rights that have been abridged in the instant case, 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 147. 124. The right to access justice implies the effective determination of the facts under investigation and, if applicable, of the corresponding criminal responsibilities in a reasonable time; therefore, considering the need to guarantee the rights of the injured parties148, a prolonged delay may constitute, in itself, a violation of the right to a fair trial149. Besides, because it is a forced disappearance, the right to access justice includes the determination of the fate or whereabouts of the victim (supra para. 118). 125. In these cases, impunity150 will not be eliminated unless it is accompanied by the determination of the general responsibility- of the State- and individuals- criminal and of its agents or of individuals.151 In complying with this obligation, the State is 146 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 6, para. 91; Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haití, supra note 38, para 77; and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 38, para. 114. 147 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 177; Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 14, para. 101; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 145 para. 100; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 58, para. 144. 148 Cf. Case of Bulacio V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 14, para. 112; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 145 para. 154 149 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamín et al. V. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 145 para. 154; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal V. Panamá, supra note 58, para. 148. 150 In this regard, the Court has defined impunity as “the overall lack of investigation, arrest, prosecution and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.” Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala, Merits, supra note 12, para. 173; Case of Tiu Tojín V. Guatemala., supra note 59, para . 69, and Case of the Miguel CastroCastro Prison V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Supra note 9, para. 405. 151 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay, supra note 59, para. 131; Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 298; and Case of Rios et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 283.