77. According to the Court, the right to a fair trial implies that everyone who has suffered from a violation of his/her human rights “has the right to obtain from State bodies having jurisdiction clarification of incidents of rights violation and the establishment of the corresponding responsibilities, on the basis of an investigation and trial.”122 Regarding the right to judicial protection, the Court has established that: (...) it requires the State to guarantee to everyone access to the administration of justice and, in particular, to a rapid and simple remedy to achieve, among other results, that those responsible for the human rights violations be judged and obtain reparations for the damage suffered (…). [A]rticle 25 constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention but also of the State’s rule of law in a democratic society (...)123. 78. Thus it shows that the State has the obligation that “every state action comprising the investigative process in its entirety, must be aimed at a specific goal, determining the truth and investigating, prosecuting, arresting, trying, and if appropriate, punishing those responsible for the offenses.” 124 79. This duty to investigate is an obligation of means and not results, which must be fulfilled by the State as its legal obligation and not simply as a mere formality destined beforehand to be futile.125 Because of this, the presence of acts obstructing justice, impediments or failure to collaborate by the authorities who have hindered or are hindering the clarification of the case, constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial. 126 80. Likewise, the IACHR recalls that the obligation to investigate and punish all incidents involving the violation of rights protected by the Convention requires that punishment be meted out not only to the perpetrators of the incidents violating human rights, but also to the instigators of said offenses and to those covering up these offenses. 127 This is based on the right of the victim’s next of kin to know the truth, which implies requiring the State bodies having jurisdiction to clarify the facts behind the rights violations, as well as to punish all those persons responsible, 128 involving all state institutions.129 122 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, para. 48. I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 169; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90. 123 124 IACHR, Report No. 85/13, Case 12.251, Admissibility and Merits. Vereda la Esperanza, Colombia, November 4, 2013, para. 242. I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 101. 125 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; and 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. 131. 126 IACHR, Report No. 53/13, Case 12.777, Merits, Claudina Velásquez-Paiz et al., Guatemala, November 4, 2013, para. 122. 127 IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 5 rev.1, March 7, 2006, para. 109. I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 146; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 275; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 186; and Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Competency. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 123. 128 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 78; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 150; and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163, para. 147. 129 I/A Court H.R., 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. 130; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 120; and Case of Huilca-Tecse v. Peru. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 66.