act also constituted a form of discrimination against the victims because of their belonging, identification, or any connection with the Argentine Jewish community. 138. In this sense, the Commission observes that, although all the people who were in the place did not have the intention of associating around the Jewish values that the AMIA advocates for or did not recognize themselves as such, because they were in a place that advocates for maintaining the identity values of the Jewish community which was the object of a discriminatory attack, they lost their lives or had their integrity affected. In this case, the discriminatory attack generated consequences to the life and integrity also against people who, although they were not Jews, were physically nearby or in a representative place for the Jewish community. Thus, due to the high level of violence of the attack, it is clear that it generated effects on those who perceived themselves to have some connection, even if it was only physical because they were in the same neighborhood of a Center of the Jewish community. 139. In view of the foregoing, the Commission observes that the State's omissions in matters of prevention which generated its international responsibility, although it has not been proven that they were deliberate against the Argentine Jewish community, do show that the State had refrained from taking reasonable measures to protect a group susceptible to a discriminatory attack. The Commission finds that the risk to the life and integrity of the persons associated with the places of the Jewish community had a special characteristic by virtue of their identity. In other words, the risk to life also implied a risk of configuring an act of discrimination. Given the type of risk in the present case, the Commission finds that the State's omissions to protect the rights recognized in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention also implied an absence of prevention of an attack with a discriminatory motive by third parties. Therefore, the absence of reasonable measures to prevent said attack also constitutes a violation of Articles 1.1 and 24 of the American Convention. 140. The Commission emphasizes that the foregoing determination does not cloud the strong repercussions that this attack had on society, that it exceeded the Jewish community itself, and that it affected other people used who did not even have said identity traits, due to the degree of violence. In addition, it should be noted that because it occurred in Argentina, it is not only a relevant episode for the Jewish community, as was its origin and motive, but its effects were projected throughout the country and the Argentine society. C. Rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection (articles 8.1. and 25 of the Convention) in relation to the obligation to respect rights (article 1.1 of the Convention) 141. Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention establish the State’s obligation to make effective judicial remedies available to victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law96. This obligation is of means and not of result and must be assumed by the State as its own legal obligation and not as a simple formality doomed in advance to be unsuccessful97. The Commission recalls that it is not part of its functions to make determinations on the criminal responsibility of individual persons that may arise from the facts of this case, so its analysis will focus on the actions and omissions attributable to the State during the investigation and criminal proceedings, in light of its international obligations regarding access to justice and to investigate human rights violations with due diligence98. 142. The Court has emphasized that as part of the measures that States must adopt in order to comply with the general obligation contemplated in article 1.1. of the American Convention to guarantee the rights recognized throughout its text, are: the investigation of human rights violations in accordance with the rules of due process; their trial by competent judicial bodies; and the imposition of sanctions on those found I/A Court H.R., Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 435 97 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, para. 161. 98 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cruz Sánchez et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 17, 2015. Series C No. 292; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 73; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 163 96 27