40 required to remove all obstacles, legal and factual, contributing to impunity152. The investigations must be conducted in line with the rules of due process of law, which implies that the bodies of administration of justice must be organized in a manner so that its independence and impartiality is guaranteed153 and the prosecution of grave human rights violations is made before regular courts154, in order to avoid impunity and search for the truth155. Moreover, given the nature and gravity of the facts, particularly since they occurred in a context of systematic human rights violations, and since the access to justice is a peremptory rule under International Law, the need to eliminate impunity gives rise to an obligation for the international community to ensure inter-State cooperation by which they must adopt all necessary measures to ensure that such violations do not remain unpunished, either by exercising their jurisdiction to apply their domestic law and the international law to prosecute it and, when applicable, punish those responsible, or by collaborating with other States that do so or attempt to do so156. 126. The Court shall now analyze whether the State has diligently conducted criminal investigations within a reasonable time and if such investigations provided an effective recourse to ensure the alleged victims their right to access justice. To such purpose, the Tribunal may examine the corresponding domestic proceedings. 127. Given that it is possible to differentiate two stages as to the development of the criminal investigations conducted as to the disappearance of Kenneth Ney Anzualdo, the Court shall analyze next, on the one hand, the first investigation opened in 1993 and provisionally closed in 1995 and, on the other hand, the investigations opened as from 2002. To that end, the Court shall take into account the evidence furnished and the arguments submitted regarding the actions taken in the following proceedings: a) First Investigation: Office of the Fifth Provincial Prosecutor for Criminal Matters of Callao (assigned number 227-93-III); b) Investigations opened after the year 2002: before the Office of the Special Provincial Prosecutor on Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions, and Clandestine Graves; before the Office of the Fifth Supra-Provincial Criminal Prosecutor (assigned number 50-2002); before the Office of the Third Supra-Provincial Criminal Prosecutor (assigned number 04-2007); before the Office of the Special Human Rights Prosecutor ; investigation informed by the State as preliminary objection, and the investigation against former president Fujimori and extradition proceedings (case number 45-2003). 152 Cf. Case of La Cantuta V. Peru, supra note 58, para. 226; Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 14, para. 192; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 145 para. 232. 153 Cf. Case of Reverón Trujillo V. Bolivia, supra note 11, para. 67 and 68; and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 55, among others. 154 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 11, para. 180; Case of the 19 Tradesmen V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C N. 109, para. 173 and 174, and Case of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia, supra note 13, para. 200. 155 The Court has established, in this regard, that “[t]hose remedies that, owing to the general conditions of the country or even the particular circumstances of a case, are illusory cannot be considered effective.” Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (art. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24. 156 Case of Goiburú et al. V. Paraguay, supra note 59, para. 131; and Case of La Cantuta V. Perú, supra note 58, para. 160.