86 390. Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture provide: Article 1. The State Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention. Article 6 […] The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction. Article 8. The States Parties shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case. [...] Likewise, it there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process. [...] After all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State. 391. These rules establish the State's obligation to ensure the enjoyment of the judicial guarantees within a reasonable time and the general obligation to provide an effective judicial remedy for 416 a violation of human rights, also derived from Article 1.1 of the Convention. It is now appropriate to examine whether the activities undertaken by the State organs in order to judicially clarify the events and to administer justice satisfy the standards established in the American Convention. 392. to proceedings displacement paramilitaries, same criminal civile. As it appears from the findings of fact both in the investigation started in 1997 which lead No. 2332 for the paramilitary raid into Bijao, the murder of Marino López, the forced and conspiracy to commit crimes, against General Del Río Rojas and two as well as the investigation initiated against another three paramilitaries for the offenses, are still pending. In this process, Emed elia Palacios appears as a partie 393. Similarly, in January 1999, investigation No. 5767 (426) was begun against General Del Río Rojas for his alleged collaboration with paramilitary groups and this said trial is based on the confession of former soldier Oswaldo De Jesús Giraldo Yepes. In July 2001, the arrest of the General was ordered and carried out; he was then released in August of the same year. Shortly afterwards, the nullity and reopening of the investigation was ordered. In 2002, soldier Giraldo Yepes withdrew his testimony due to death threats and a lack of protection for him and his family. In December 2004, the investigation was closed. More than four years later, in February 2009, the Supreme Court ordered the reopening of the investigation under No. 426 in response to the request for review lodged by the Procurator General of the Nation. This investigation is still at the instruction stage. In 2001, a partie civil suit filed by the petitioners' representative was rejected, after which he filed a tutela before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court ordered the admission of this claim. 394. In the first place, the Commission observes that the only criminal investigation initiated was that relating to the paramilitary raid on the Bijao hamlet. There were no investigations in that jurisdiction regarding the other paramilitary raids relevant to the present case. The remaining raids are allegedly being considered in the context of the Justice and Peace Law proceedings, to the extent of their being mentioned in the voluntary statements rendered . 416 As the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has pointed out "Article 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention obliges the State to guarantee to every individual access to the administration of justice and, in particular, to simple and prompt recourse, so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained for the damages suffered. As this Court has ruled, 'Article 25 is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society in the terms of the Convention". I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza Tamayo. Reparations (art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 169.