137 I consider that it is very important to preserve the distinction between the two articles. If we examine Article 25 with the parameters of Article 8 - for example, the reasonable time limit - the meaning of the former article is nullified, because it requires, not a reasonable time limit, which could easily exceed a year in the terms of Article 8, but promptness; namely, resolution within a matter of days probably. 4. Based on the above, I cannot agree with paragraph 187 of the judgment of the Court which derives from Article 25, not the right to a simple, prompt and effective remedy, but the right to the opening of an investigation and, subsequently, a trial that, obviously, could not have those characteristics. Other paragraphs of the judgment examine the possible violation of Article 25 with parameters that, I consider, are correct for the examination of Article 8 (paragraph 173 to 177 and 195 and ff.). I consider that the Court should develop specific parameters to evaluate the compliance of States Parties with their obligations under Article 25. 5. I have a second difference of opinion to that of the majority of the members of the Court, which encompasses both Article 25 and Article 8, because the Court combines the, and refers to the affirmation mentioned above that they both confer: “on the next of kin of the victims the right that the death of the latter will be investigated effectively by the State authorities; that proceedings will be filed against those responsible for these unlawful acts; and, if applicable, the pertinent punishments will be imposed, and the losses that the said next of kin have suffered will be repaired.” 6. In paragraph 187, the Court cites Articles 8 and 25 as the source of the right of the victims or their next of kin, as applicable, to require the State to prosecute the possible perpetrators of grave human rights violations. I agree that this right exists, but I consider that neither of the articles cited provides adequate grounds for the right in question. 7. Article 8, entitled "Right to a Fair Trial," embodies due process and, above all, access to justice; namely, the right to be heard by an independent and impartial court, in a reasonable time in two situations: a) when a criminal accusation is substantiated, in which case the bearer of the right is the accused; and b) for the determination of rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal or any other nature. As can be seen from examining this Article, it establishes the right of access to justice with regard to any criminal charge or litigation of a civil, labor, fiscal or any other nature. The breadth of this formulation means that the determination of any type of right requires compliance with due process, but does not, in itself, establish the previous existence of the rights that will be determined according to the procedural norms it describes. The missing step that connects Article 8 to the facts of the case is to determine the legal source of the next of kin’s right to know the truth of what has happened, and to require the State to prosecute those allegedly responsible. 8. I consider that the legal grounds for requiring a trial that seeks to establish the responsibility of the participants in the violation of specific rights, to which those affected by the violation have access, should be found, not in a provision that embodies the right to a remedy or in one of a procedural nature, but in the substantive right that has been violated, in light of the general obligation to guarantee rights, contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, which can only be examined in connection with a substantive right, particularly in view of the