58 A1. Regarding the lack of a diligent and effective investigation in the criminal realm 190. The Court has considered that the State is in the obligation to provide effective judicial recourses to the people that argue they are the victims of violations of human rights (Article 25), recourses that shall be substantiated pursuant with the rules of the due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation, that falls upon the same States, to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights acknowledged by the Convention to all those people under its jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).195 191. The right to a fair trial requires that the determination of the facts under investigation and, if it were the case, of the corresponding criminal responsibilities be made effective in a reasonable period of time, reason for which, in attention to the need to guarantee the rights of the affected parties,196 a prolonged delay can constitute, in itself, a violation of the right to a fair trial.197 Additionally, since it is a forced disappearance, the right to a fair trial includes that the investigation of the facts try to determine the fate or whereabouts of the victim (supra para. 143). 192. Even though the Court has established that the duty to investigate is one of means and not results,198 this does not mean, however, that the investigation may be carried out as “a mere formality condemned beforehand to be unsuccessful.”199 In this regard, the Tribunal has established that “each of the state’s actions that make up the investigation process, as well as the investigation in its totality, shall be oriented toward a specific purpose, the determination of the truth and the investigation, persecution, capture, trial, and if it were the case, the punishment of those responsible for the facts.” 200 193. Now we shall analyze if the State has carried out the criminal investigations with due diligence and within a reasonable period of time, and if they have been effective recourses that can guarantee the alleged victims’ right to a fair trial. For that effect, the Tribunal will examine the corresponding domestic proceedings. (a) First criminal accusations: 1992-1999 Valadez Sanabria before notary public (affidavit) on June 18, 2009 (dossier of merits, volume IV, folios 1422 through 1423). 195 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 32, para. 91; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 110, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 122. 196 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, supra note 25, para. 114; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 112, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 124. 197 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 154, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 124. 198 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 24, para. 177; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 101, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 144. 199 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 24, para. 177; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 101, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, para. 123. 200 Cf. 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, para. 131, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 101.