13 victims, and guarantees the rights that were affected, it must be carried out in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective; it must have a purpose and be assumed by the States as a legal obligation in itself and not as a measure taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his or her next of kin or the private provision of evidentiary elements. 57 Similarly, the Inter-American Court in certain circumstances has examined the effectiveness of appeals filed within the administrative jurisdiction.58 In such cases, it has been analyzed whether the decisions therein have effectively contributed to put an end to a situation that violates rights, to ensure non-repetition of the wrongful acts, and to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights protected by the American Convention.59 40. Thus, the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable period, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin that everything be done for them to know the truth of what happened and investigate, prosecute, and where applicable, punish those responsible.60 41. The Inter-American Court has held since its Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 that for a remedy to be effective, “it must be truly effective in establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights and in providing redress.” 61 It is clear that the remedy will not be truly effective if it is not resolved within a period that allows for protection from the violation that is claimed.62 As such, it follows that the remedy must be prompt. 42. In an important part of the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court itself, it was determined that Article 8 together with Article 25 of the American Convention affirms the right of access to justice.63 As such, the Inter-American Court determined that Article 8(1) of the Pact of San José has a direct relation to Article 25 in relation to Article 1(1), both of the same treaty, which ensures everyone a prompt and simple remedy to obtain, among other results, that those who are responsible for human rights violations be prosecuted and 57 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; and Case of Garibaldi V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 113. 58 Cf. Case of the Mapiripan Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 210; Case of of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 217; and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 139. 59 Cf. Case of the Mapiripan Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 214; Case of of the Rochela Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 219; and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 139. 60 Cf. Case of Bulacio V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; and Case of Massacres El Mozote and nearby places V. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No 252, para. 242. 61 Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2) and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series to No. 9, para. 24. In this sense, Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, paras. 136 and 137 and Case of “Five Pensioners” Vs Perú. Merits. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 136. 62 Cf. Case of “Juvenile Reeducation Institute” V. Paraguay. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 245. 63 Cf. Case of Cantos V. Argentina. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 7, 2001. Series C No. 85, para. 52.