12 available remedies within domestic law may, in certain circumstances, satisfy in a collective manner the requirements established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, even if none of them, individually, fulfill those provisions in a comprehensive manner.50 37. The Inter-American Court has established that the remedy of amparo due to its nature is a “simple and prompt remedy designed for the protection of all of the rights recognized by the constitutions and laws of the States Parties and by the Convention.”51 Moreover, it also considered that such a remedy falls within the scope of Article 25 of the Pact of San José, and thus it has to meet several requirements, including adequacy and effectiveness.52 However, the Inter-American Court has considered that it is not in itself incompatible with the American Convention that a State limit its remedy of amparo to specific matters, as long as it provides another remedy of similar nature and scope for those same human rights that are not governed by the jurisdiction of amparo.53 In any case, what matters is that the legal remedy be suitable to combat the violation, and that its implementation by the competent authority be effective,54 as everyone should have access to a simple and prompt remedy before competent courts or tribunals that protect their fundamental rights.55 38. At times it has been interpreted that the effective remedy of which the InterAmerican Court speaks, can be offered within criminal proceedings, particularly in cases of serious human rights violations. Thus, the Inter-American Court has established that victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin, should have ample opportunities to be heard and carry out their respective processes, which in the Court's opinion may include both clarification of the facts and punishment of those responsible, as well as due reparation. 56 39. The Inter-American Court has also understood that for a criminal investigation to constitute an effective remedy that ensures the right of access to justice for the alleged 49 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 64. 50 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres V. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 288. 51 Habeus Corpus in Emergency Situations(Arts. 27(2), 25(1) and 7(6) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series to No. 8, para. 32. 52 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights) Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series to No. 9, para. 24; Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 78; and Case of Escher et al. V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 196. 53 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 92. 54 Cf. Case of Tibi V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 131; Case of Acosta Calderón V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 93; and Case of Palamara Iribarne V. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 184. 55 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community V. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 112; Case of Cantos V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 52; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No 99, para. 121. 56 Cf. Case of de the “Street Children”(Villagrán Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, paras. 225 and 227.