53 provisions indicated. Even in some specific records in which it declared a violation of Article 8 and not the others,213 it indicated that the duty established in Article 6 is not restricted to classifying the crime of torture. Thus, it has indicated that “failing to effectively investigate acts of torture […] means […] omitting to take effective measures to prevent acts of this nature from occurring again […], ignoring the provisions of Article 6”.214 The Court has indicated that “the obligation to investigate is reinforced by the provisions of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention [against] Torture”.215 Therefore, it does not consider the State's arguments convincing and sees no reason to deviate from its most recent and consistent precedents. Consequently, the Court determines that as of February 18, 1999,216 the State violated Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the aforementioned ICPPT. 210. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds the State responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of Messrs. Omeara Carrascal, Omeara Miraval and Álvarez Sánchez, as well as their families.217 Furthermore, regarding the lack of investigation of alleged acts of torture, Colombia is responsible, to the detriment of Mr. Omeara Miraval's next of kin218, for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and with Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. The names of the persons referred to are indicated later, in section D of this chapter (infra paras. 258 and 259). Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, paras. 128 to 130, and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paras. 154 to 156. 214 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, supra, para. 129, and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, supra, para. 155. In addition, in paragraph 114 of the last decision, it also indicated that “[a]rticles 1 [and] 6[, as well as 9] of [the Convention against Torture] oblige […] taking all effective measures to prevent and punish all acts of torture”. 215 Cf. Case of Bueno Alvez v. Argentina, supra, para. 88, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 462. 216 The Court has indicated that the obligations arising from the Inter-American Convention against Torture are enforceable as of its ratification, even if they were not in force at the time of the [event].” (Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 137, and Case of the Rural Community of Santa Bárbara Vs. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, paragraph 219). Colombia deposited the instrument of ratification on January 19, 1999. Article 22 of the aforementioned Convention states that it, [for each State that ratifies [it] […] after the second instrument of ratification has been deposited, […] shall enter into force on the thirtieth day from the date on which such State deposits its instrument of ratification”. 217 Thus, the Court accepts the State's acknowledgment that, with respect to the investigation of the respective facts, it violated rights to the detriment of the next of kin of Omeara Carrascal and Omeara Miraval (supra paras. 16 and 32 and 19 and 33). It should be clarified that, based on what has been established based on the State's acknowledgment of responsibility, Omeara Miraval is not a victim due to the failure to investigate possible torture to his detriment but, as the son of Mr. Omeara Carrascal, of the failure to investigate what happened to the latter. As for Mr. Omeara Carrascal, who remained alive for some time after the attack against him, he is a victim in regard to the lack of investigative action around what happened to him in the first stages of the investigation. Finally, the State's acknowledgment regarding the investigation into what happened to Mr. Álvarez Sánchez covers the period between October 21, 1994 and March 10, 2003, and Mr. Álvarez Sánchez died on May 11, 2000. Therefore, the Court understands that, based on such acknowledgment, the State's responsibility covers damages both with respect to Mr. Álvarez Sánchez and his next of kin. Regarding the investigation of threats against Mrs. Carmen Omeara, the recognition of the State included the violation of Articles 5(1), 8 and 25 of the Convention, and the omission to investigate the facts related to forced displacement, to the detriment of Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval, Fabiola Álvarez Solano and Elba Katherine and Claudia Marcela and Manuel Guillermo, all with the surnames Omeara Álvarez, the recognition by the State included the violation of Articles 22(1), 8, and 25 of the Convention, respectively (supra paras. 25 and 35). In addition, in relation to the investigation of the facts related to Mr. Álvarez Sánchez, Colombia acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention for the omission in guaranteeing the duty to investigate the violation of the right to life and personal integrity (supra paras. 22 and 34). 218 It was after the discovery of the body of Mr. Omeara Miraval that the State had “well-founded reason to believe that an act of torture ha[d] been committed,” in the terms of Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. Therefore, it was once Mr. Omeara Miraval was dead that the obligation to investigate the possible torture arose. Therefore, he cannot be held as a victim of the breach of that duty. 213