B. Right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8.1, 99and 25.1.100 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof) 95. According to the consistent case law of the organs of the inter-American system, as a result of the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the States are obliged to provide effective judicial recourses to the victims of human rights violations that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law.101 Furthermore, the Court has held that the right of access to justice should ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to have everything necessary done to learn the truth about what happened and to investigate, try and, as appropriate, punish those responsible.102 That obligation, which relates to means rather than to results, must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.103 96. Thus, the State has the obligation to ensure that "each State act that comprises the investigation proceeding, and the entire investigation in itself, should be oriented at a specific purpose: the determination of the truth and the investigation, finding, arrest, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the events.”104 97. In addition, the investigation must be serious, impartial, and effective and directed toward ascertaining the truth and finding, arresting, trying and, where applicable, punishing the perpetrators.105 The aforementioned obligation holds “regardless of what agent (even a private party) is eventually found responsible for the violation. Where the acts of private parties that violate the Convention are not seriously investigated, those parties are aided in a sense by the government, thereby rendering the State internationally responsible”106 Likewise, due diligence requires that the investigating body perform all the actions and inquiries needed to achieve the sought-after outcome. Otherwise, the investigation is not effective under the terms of the Convention.107 99 Article 8.1 of the American Convention: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 100 Article 25.1 of the American Convention: Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 101 I/A Court HR. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Persons Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, par. 435. 102 I/A Court HR. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, par. 199. 103 I/A Court HR. 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, par. 131. 104 IACHR, Report 85/13, Case 12.251, Admissibility and Merits,Vereda la Esperanza, Colombia, November 4, 2013, par. 242. I/A Court HR. Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of Friday, April 03, 2009, Series C No. 196, par. 101. 105 I/A Court HR. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, par. 127. 106 I/A Court HR. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, par. 238. 107 I/A Court HR. 227; and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, par. 83. 17