32. Regarding the police inspection on November 13, 1993, the Chamber held that "it was not conducted by experts specializing in these types of incidents” who would use a proper forensic investigation methodology. It added that the November 15 inspection that same year did include the participation of ballistics experts, forensic photographers, and other specialists, and it was concluded that “no fragments of the explosive device that injured the person and destroyed the vehicle were found, due to how long had passed and the vehicle traffic on the highway.” The Chamber therefore underscored this demonstrated "the importance of conducting the inspection with all the right experts and evidence analysts for the most effective investigation.” The Chamber concluded as follows: The inspection and expert witness exhibits have shown that the [general forensic investigative] methodology [at the scene of the facts—protecting, observing, and establishing the scene of the facts, as well as collecting and turning over evidence to a laboratory] was not even minimally followed, and in addition, the expert reports are not conclusive in their findings, leaving a significant margin for doubt. They are therefore not decisive and do not help resolve the conflicting versions of the facts. (...) Based on the reasoned justifications set forth, doubt persists in all the alleged crimes, as it has not been decisively established whether the grenade or grenades were thrown from outside the vehicle or if they were being transported inside it, and it therefore cannot be concluded with certainty that the crimes were committed (...). Because of the amount of time that has passed and the disappearance of the vehicle, it is difficult and perhaps impossible to conduct other expert examinations to resolve the doubt that persists, doubts that were also raised by the experts upon recognition that other investigations were needed. Because of this inadequate investigation, neither the corpus delicti nor the participation of the defendant in it could be sufficiently established in this preliminary investigation. The provisional dismissal ordered by the judge subject of this appeal is therefore appropriate.22 33. The Commission does not have up-to-date information on the health of Mr. Aguirre. IV. CONSIDERATIONS OF LAW A. Rights to a fair trial) and judicial protection (articles 8(1)23 and 25(1)24 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1)25 of the Convention 1. General considerations 34. Pursuant to articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, States have an obligation to make effective judicial remedies available to the victims of human rights violations, and they must meet the requirements of the rules of legal due process.26 This obligation, which is one of means and not ends, must be assumed by the State as its own juridical duty and not a simple formality condemned from the start to failure.27 Likewise, the IACHR has held as follows: The judicial investigation must be undertaken in good faith, diligently, exhaustively, and impartially, and must be aimed at exploring all possible lines of investigation to enable the identification of the perpetrators of the crime so they can be tried and punished.28 35. As regards States’ obligation to act with due diligence, this means facilitating access to suitable and effective judicial remedies to human rights violations. Likewise, for the purposes of guaranteeing the right to access to Resolution of the Chamber of the Third Western District, July 20, 2004. Annex 1 to the communication from the petitioner of July 28, 2005. 23 Article 8(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. 24 Article 25(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. 25 Article 1(1) The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 26 Inter-American Court. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 435 27 Inter-American Court. Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, para. 161. 28 IACHR. Report 37/00. Case 11,481. Monseñor Oscar Arnulfo Romero and Galdámez, para. El Salvador. April 13, 2000, para. 80. 22 6