B. Rights to a fair trial134 and judicial protection,135 in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention and Article I b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons136 56. The Court has established that States are obliged to provide victims of human rights violations with effective judicial remedies (Article 25), which must be adjudicated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8.1) all under States’ general obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights enshrined in the Convention for every person under their jurisdiction (Article 1.1).137 57. Under Inter-American case law, when a petition involves the disappearance of a person, there is an inseparable link between the State response and protection of the life and integrity of the person that has been reported missing. The immediate and exhaustive nature of the State’s response is independent of whether or not the case involves a disappearance at the hands of private individuals or of State agents. In fact, when the acts of private parties are not investigated, those parties are aided in a sense by the government, thereby making the State responsible in the international sphere. 138 The Commission recalls that when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been subjected to disappearance, the prompt and immediate action of prosecution and judicial authorities is essential, timely ordering the necessary measures aimed at determining the whereabouts of the victim or the place where he or she may be deprived of liberty.139 58. Even though the State’s duty is of means and not of results, this does not mean that it can “be undertaken as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.”140 In fact, this obligation “must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government.”141 Thus, the State must ensure that “each act of the State that forms part of the investigative process, as well as the investigation as a whole, should have a specific purpose: the determination of the truth, and the investigation, pursuit, capture, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the facts.”142 Additionally, the case law has been clear in emphasizing that, “in light of this obligation, once the authorities have knowledge of the event, they should initiate a serious, impartial and effective investigation, ex officio and without delay […] utilizing all the legal means available and should be oriented toward the determination of the truth.”143 In this regard, the State must show that it has conducted an immediate, exhaustive, serious and impartial investigation,144 which must be aimed at exploring all possible lines of investigation.145 The State can Article 8.1 of the American Convention establishes the following: “Article 8. Right to a Fair Trial. 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.” 135 Article 25.1 of the American Convention establishes the following: “Article 25. Judicial Protection. 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.” 136 The Mexican State deposited its instrument of ratification of said treaty on April 9, 2002. In this regard, and taking into account that a potential forced disappearance is alleged and that the investigation was still open at that time, the Commission also considers to be applicable Article 1 b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, which in the relevant portion establishes: “Article 1. The States Parties to this Convention undertake: […]b) To punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories. 137 IA Court of HR. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, par. 91. 138 IA Court of HR. Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 177. 139 IA Court of HR. Anzualdo Castro Judgment, par. 134; Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña Judgment, par. 167. 140 IA Court of HR. Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 177; Heliodoro Portugal Judgment, par. 144; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192 (“Valle Jaramillo Judgment”), par. 100. 141 IA Court of HR. Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 177. 142 IA Court of HR. 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, par. 131. 143 IA Court of HR. Case of García Prieto et al v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, par. 101. 144 IACHR. Report No. 55/97. Merits. Juan Carlos Abella et al. Argentina. November 18, 1997, par. 412. 145 IACHR. Report No. 25/09. Merits. Sebastião Camargo Jr. Brazil, March 19, 2009, par. 109. 134 19