32 by the State, the events of the Las Dos Erres Massacre have not been duly investigated, nor have those responsible been prosecuted and punished […] which constitutes a violation to Articles 8 and 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention.” On the other hand, the representatives expressed that twenty-six years have passed and none the responsible parties have been punished, therefore the State has not complied with its obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible. Additionally, the representatives indicated that “the impunity and lack of complete and true information on that occurred in the massacre has caused the States’ violation of the right to the truth, thus breaching Articles 8, 25, and 13 of the Convention.” On the other hand, the State acknowledged the claims of the Commission and the representatives regarding the violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, according to Article 1(1) thereof, based on the petition filed by FAMDEGUA. In addition to the above, the State expressed that it had taken several steps to obtain justice, and reiterated its commitment to conduct a serious and effective investigation and a criminal trial to identify the alleged responsible parties. 103. In light of the parties’ indication of the various irregularities that have impeded the victims’ effective access to justice, the Court will address this issue in the following three sections: A) Application of the “Law on the Appeal for Legal Protection, Habeas Corpus, and Constitutionality” in Guatemala (hereinafter “Law on the Appeal for Legal Protection”); B) Delay and inapplicability of the “Law on National Reconciliation” (hereinafter “LRN”), and C) Lack of a complete and thorough investigation of the facts of the massacre, as well as other omissions. 104. It is worth noting that this Court has expressed that, according to the American Convention, the States Parties are obligated to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of the human rights violations (Article 25), remedies which should be substantiated in conformity with the rules of due process (Article 8(1)), all of this within the general obligation of the same States, to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention for any person under its jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).108 105. Likewise, it has indicated that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin, to have everything necessary done to uncover the truth of the events and to punish those responsible.109 A) Application of the “Law on the Appeal for Legal Protection” 106. As derived from the facts of the case, the appeal for legal protection has been used as a practice to delay the criminal proceeding (supra para. 90, 91, 96, 98 to 100). Even the State, in its brief on the answer to the application, when recognizing its responsibility, indicated that “[…] in practice, the constant and frivolous use of the appeal for legal protection has merited that different Bodies of the State discuss the implementation of measures that allow attacking the inadequate use of this constitutional action.” This Court, in the Case of Mack Chang against the State of Guatemala already ruled on the defects of the appeal for legal 108 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 91; Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No. 187, para. 103, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 110. 109 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 115, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 112.