42 arisen from mechanisms such as the statute of limitations and res judicata with regards to continuing the investigations.” At the same time, the State insisted that it is only partially responsible because “judicial proceedings to punish the material and intellectual authors are still pending” and because it disputes certain assertions made by the Commission and the representatives. 144. Taking into account that the State’s acknowledgement is “partial” and that there are still elements in dispute between the parties, the Court will now set forth the findings it deems necessary with regard to the alleged violations. 145. The Court has maintained that, according to the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial recourses to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), and that this recourse must be provided in conformity with due process of law (Article 8(1)). Both of these obligations fall within the general State obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all those within their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).117 146. This Court has indicated that the right to judicial access must secure the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to have every measure taken such that the truth of the events may be known within a reasonable time and that those eventually found responsible be punished.118 147. With regard to the violation of Article 13 of the American Convention alleged by the representatives, the Court notes that the right to truth is subsumed within Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. These Articles provide the right of the victim or his or her next of kin to obtain a State determination of the truth of the events and the corresponding responsibility through an investigation and trial.119 148. Upon implementing or tolerating acts directed toward the perpetration of extrajudicial executions, or by failing to investigate or punish those responsible, the State violates the obligation to respect and ensure the full and free exercise of the rights of the alleged victims or their next of kin as recognized in the Convention. In addition, these violations prevent society from knowing the truth of the events,120 encourage the chronic repetition of human rights violations and perpetuate the total defenselessness of the victims and their next of kin.121 The investigation into the events must be conducted using all available legal means, in order to determine the truth of what occurred and in order to 117 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), supra note 16, para. 106; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 11, para. 110; and Case of Claude Reyes et al., supra note 27, para. 127. 118 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 382; Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 8, para. 101; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 15, para. 289. 119 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al., supra note 16, para. 148; Case of Blanco Romero et al. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 62; and Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 78. 120 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 15, para. 300; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 12, para. 146; and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 12, para. 238. 121 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 112, para. 168; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 12, para. 266; and Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 119, para. 76.