and the circumstantial evidence of connivance with the illegal armed group that perpetrated it are sufficient to establish the State's responsibility for violation of the rights to life protected by Article 4 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with the obligations contained in article 1(1) the same instrument. 184. Having established the State's responsibility, the Commission finds that it is unnecessary to ascertain whether or not it is medically proven that the subsequent death of Héctor Álvarez Sánchez was the consequence of the aforesaid attack. Furthermore, in relation to the petitioners' submissions regarding a separate violation of Article 7 of the Convention owing to an alleged violation of the right to personal security, the Commission finds no additional elements to conclude that Hector Alvarez’s right in that regard was infringed. 3. Rights to a Fair Trial225 and Judicial Protection226 and the Duty to Adopt Provisions under Domestic Law227 (Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention) 185. The Court has held that “as a result of the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the States are obliged to provide effective judicial recourses to the victims of human rights violations that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law.”228 By the same token, the Court has ruled that victims and their next of kin have the right to expect, and the States the obligation to ensure, that what happened to the alleged victims will be investigated effectively by the State authorities; that proceedings will be filed against those allegedly responsible for the unlawful acts; and, if applicable, the pertinent penalties will be imposed, and the losses suffered by the next of kin repaired.229 Accordingly, State authorities, once they become aware of an act of violation of human rights, especially the rights to life, humane treatment and personal liberty,230 have a duty to initiate ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation,231 which must be conducted within a reasonable period of time.232 225Article 8(1) of the American Convention states, 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. 226Article 25(1) of the American Convention provides: 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. 227The Inter-American Court has stated that Article 2 of the Convention requires the State to suppress any laws and practices that imply a violation of the guarantees established in the Convention and, furthermore, to adopt laws and implement practices leading to the effective observance of those guarantees. I/A Court H.R., Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, pars. 207; I/A Court H.R., Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 60; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 24, 2009, par. 122. 228I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. par. 124; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163. par. 145; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. par. 381; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.). Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, par. 106. 229 I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. Series C No. 168. par. 103; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, par. 114; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. par. 382. 230I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. par. 100. 231I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. Series C No. 168. par. 101; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110. pars. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. par. 130. 232I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100. par. 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, par. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. par. 382. 43