reparations.217 To this end, the Court’s powers are not limited to merely confirming, recording or taking note of the acknowledgement made by the State or to verifying its formal conditions, but it must compare it to the nature and severity of the alleged violations, the demands and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and positions of the parties,218 so that it can identify, insofar as possible and in exercise of its competence, the truth about what happened.219 152. Since the State offers this “acknowledgement” based on the violation of the right to the truth and the “access to administration of justice” of the presumed victims, arguing that “enormous confusion” exists as well as contradictory position in relation to the events, owing to the “evidentiary shortcomings during the domestic criminal proceedings,” this act contradicts its position before the Commission. According to the State itself, the said text “does not imply acknowledging or accepting the facts presented by the Commission and by the victims,” so that, in fact, it would not be acquiescing to the claims of the opposing party. In any case, as indicated, one of those two criminal proceedings that the State indicates contradict each other, is not part of the purpose of the instant case, so that the State’s text is unsubstantiated and will be not be considered as an acknowledgement of responsibility, and does not have legal effect. 153. Consequently, the Court will now consider the other arguments relating to the investigation of the facts and the development of the domestic proceedings. B.2. Obligation to investigate and the domestic proceedings 154. In the understanding that, given the nature of the events of the instant case, the ordinary criminal jurisdiction plays a leading role in the determination of the facts and the corresponding responsibilities, it is possible to consider whether the proceedings processed under this jurisdiction and under the disciplinary and the contentious administrative jurisdictions have been “useful and effective to guarantee the right of access to justice, as a complement to establish the truth, determine the scope and dimensions of the State responsibility, and make integral reparation for the violations.”220 155. The Court recalls that, based on the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, States are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law.221 Furthermore, the Court has indicated that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the presumed victims or their next of kin that everything necessary is done to discover the truth about what happened and to punish those eventually found responsible.222 156. The Court has established that the obligation to ensure rights (Article 1(1)) includes the legal obligation “to prevent, within reason, human rights violations, to carry out a real investigation of the violations that have been committed within its sphere of jurisdiction using all available means in order to identify those responsible, impose the pertinent punishments [on those responsible], and ensure adequate reparation to the victims.” The most important element is to 217 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105, and Case of Gelman v. Uruguay, para. 26. 218 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 27. 219 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para. 17, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 22. 220 Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para. 130. See also cases of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 157, and Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 128. 221 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 91, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 207. 222 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, para. 114, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 255. ‐ 46 ‐