50 260. Based on the repeated case law of the Inter-American Court, the analysis of the rights enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention allows us to determine whether the State fulfilled its duty to guarantee the substantive rights protected by the Convention. In addition, these provisions enshrine the right of the next of kin of the victims of these violations to be heard throughout domestic proceedings as well as to obtain the truth and, if appropriate, appropriate punishment for those responsible and comprehensive reparations. 261. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has emphasized the necessary relationship existing between the general duty to guarantee indicated in Article 1.1 of the Convention and the specific 287 rights protected by that instrument so that the State can guarantee them. As a result of that duty to guarantee, obligations arise that are incumbent upon the State in order to ensure the free and full 288 exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention for anyone subject to its jurisdiction. 262. According to the Court, the duty to investigate human rights violations is found among the 289 positive measures that States must undertake to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. The Court has ruled that in order to fulfill this duty to guarantee, States must not only prevent but must also investigate violations of human rights recognized in that instrument, like those alleged in the present case, and must also seek to reestablish, if possible, the right violated, and when appropriate, redress the 290 damages which resulted from the violations of human rights. 263. The Court has also indicated that “as a result of the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the States are obliged to provide effective judicial recourses to the victims of human 291 rights violations that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law.” 264. With respect to the rights of the victims’ next of kin to obtain justice and reparations, the Court has said that: From Article 8 of the Convention it is evident that the victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin, should have substantial possibilities to be heard and to act in the respective 292 proceedings, both to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation. …continuation 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. 287 I/A Court HR., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 4. para. 164; I/A Court HR., Vargas Areco Case. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C, No. 155. para. 73; and I/A Court HR., Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 163. para. 145. 288 I/A Court HR. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C, No. 168. para. 98; I/A Court HR., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C, No. 1. para. 91; and I/A Court HR., Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 163. para. 67. 289 I/A Court HR. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C, No. 168. para. 99; I/A Court HR., La Cantuta Case. Judgment of November 29, 2006 Series C, No. 162. para. 110; I/A Court HR. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C, No. 166. para. 88. 290 I/A Court HR. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C, No. 168. para. 99. 291 I/A Court HR. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C, No. 167. para. 124; I/A Court HR., Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 163. para. 145; I/A Court HR., Miguel Castro Castro Prison Case. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160. para. 381; and I/A Court HR., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C, No. 158, para. 106. 292 I/A Court HR. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C, No. 168. para. 102; I/A Court HR., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C, No. 63. para. 227; and I/A Court HR., Case of the Serrano Cruz Brothers. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C, No. 120, para. 63.