30 145. The Inter-American Court has said that “the execution of an effective investigation is a fundamental and conditioning element for the protection of certain rights that are affected or annulled by 158 these situations, such as […] the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment and life.” 146. The Commission has ruled that Articles 8.1. and 25 of the Convention establish the State’s obligation of providing access to justice with guarantees of legality, independence, and impartiality, within a reasonable period, together with the general obligation of providing effective judicial recourse following the violation of basic rights, including the principle that procedural instruments and 159 mechanisms are to be effective. 147. Similarly, the Inter-American Court has ruled that victims of human rights violations and their next-of-kin have the right to expect – and the State, the obligation to ensure – that what befell 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 160 imposed, and the losses suffered by the next of kin repaired. According to the above, the State’s authorities, once apprised of a human rights violation – in particular of the right to life, humane treatment, 161 or personal liberty – have the duty of initiating, without delay and on an ex officio basis, a serious, 162 163 impartial, and effective investigation, which must be completed within a reasonable time. 148. Regarding the reasonableness of the time taken, the Court has ruled that the right of access to justice is not exhausted with the filing of domestic proceedings; instead, inquiries must be 164 pursued through all legal means available and must be oriented toward the determination of the truth. It has further ruled that the State has the duty of ensuring that all steps necessary to learn the truth about 165 what happened and for those responsible to be punished are carried out, involving all institutions of the 166 State in that undertaking. In addition, the Court and the Commission have established, regarding the principle of reasonable time enshrined in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, that three elements must be taken into consideration in determining whether or not the time taken to discharge proceedings is 158 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 145. 159 IACHR, Application from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, February 13, 2007, para. 118. 160 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, para. 103; I/A Court H. R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C No. 100, para. 114; and I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 161 I/A Court H. R., 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, para. 100. 162 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, para. 101; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Judgment of July 8, 2004, Series C No. 110, para. 146; I/A Court H. R., 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, para. 130. 163 I/A Court H. R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C No. 100, para. 114; I/A Court H. R., Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, para. 146; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 164 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, para. 101. 165 I/A Court H. R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C No. 100, para. 114; I/A Court H. R., Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, para. 146; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 166 I/A Court H. R., 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, para. 130; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, para. 120; and I/A Court H. R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru, Judgment of March 3, 2005, Series C, No. 121, para. 66.