23 105. The Commission alleged that “even though the national courts were informed about the abuse, the delayed [...] judicial actions taken did not contribute to clarify the facts that had been reported.” Particularly, as regards Proceeding No. 24.079, the Commission alleged that the judicial authorities had not made a diligent effort to investigate the precise circumstances in which Mr. Bueno-Alves was admitted to a health institution. According to the Commission this was reflected in the dismissals ordered by the judicial authorities, which were based on the insufficiency of the evidence. It further alleged that the State conducted the criminal action as if it were a civil action between private parties. Additionally, the Commission pointed out that though Mr. Bueno-Alves had not denounced the beatings in his stomach and the deprivation of medicines until a month after his arrest, thus limiting certain investigation means, this has not released the State from its obligation to act with due diligence. The Commission further stated that the final decision in Proceeding No. 24.079 was issued almost nine years after the occurrence of the facts. Finally, the Commission alleged that the State did not inform Mr. Bueno-Alves about his right to contact a consular officer of the country of which he is a national. 106. The representative, besides concurring with the points alleged by the Commission, further stated that the State did not show any interest in giving an answer to the request for justice made by the victim. 107. The State accepted the conclusions drawn by the Commission regarding the violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court considers it convenient to make some references regarding the alleged violations. 108. As regards the obligation to guarantee the right enshrined in Article 5(1) of the Convention, the Court has pointed out that this obligation implies the duty of the State to conduct an adequate investigation into the possible acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.67 As regards the effective investigation and the documentation, the following principles are applicable: independence, impartiality, competence, diligence, and promptness, which must be adopted by any judicial system and applied to all investigations involving alleged tortures. 109. In the instant case, on the basis of the claim made by Mr. Bueno-Alves, an obligation arises for the State to fully investigate the facts, taking also into account that said facts had occurred while the victim was under police custody. 110. Judge No. 21, who ordered the arrest of Mr. Bueno-Alves, was informed about the alleged “blows on the ears” on April 8, 1988, when he also personally received Mr. BuenoAlves’ preliminary examination statement. On that date, the judge ordered a medical examination to be carried out “urgently” regarding such claims. The medical examination was made on April 13, 1988 by forensic medical examiners68 who were unable to draw any 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. 67 Cf. Case of Vargas-Areco, supra note 14, para. 78; Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 16, para. 147, and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 24, para. 92. 68 Cf. Record of appendixes to the application, Volume I, Appendix 8, folio 354.