24 77. In this sense, the Court has also stated that in cases involving extra-judicial executions, the authorities of a State must initiate a rigorous, impartial and effective investigation ex officio and as soon as is practicable after they take knowledge of the facts.26 Said obligation must be fulfilled in a particular manner when the extra-judicial execution involves a child, given its inherent vulnerability, especially if the minor is under the custody or protection of the State.27 78. Similarly, as regards to the obligation to guarantee the right set forth in Article 5(1) of the Convention, the Court has indicated that said obligation comprises the State’s duty to investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.28 79. In that sense, the Court has previously pointed out that: The Court understands that, based on the general obligation to guarantee every person subject to its jurisdiction the human rights set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention, together with the right to personal integrity set forth in Article 5 (Right to Personal Integrity) of the treaty, the State has the obligation to immediately initiate ex officio an effective investigation to identify, prosecute and punish perpetrators when a complaint has been filed or when there are sufficient reasons to believe that an act of torture has been committed.29 80. The investigation to be carried out by the State into acts that allegedly violate Article 5(1) of the Convention is also expressly regulated in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, which bind State Parties to take all steps that may be effective to prevent and punish any acts of torture within the scope of their jurisdiction, and to guarantee an impartial examination of all torture cases.30 Paraguay ratified the Convention against Torture on February 12, 1990, and deposited the ratification instrument on March 9, 1990. 81. Ultimately, the duty to investigate is a compulsory obligation of the State embodied in international law, which cannot be mitigated by any domestic legislation Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 3, para. 148; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 296; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 21, para. 143; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 25, paras. 219 and 223. In the same regard, cf. Eur.C.H.R., Nachova and others v. Bulgaria [GC], No. 43577/98 and 43579/98 Judgment of 6 July, 2005, para. 111. 26 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 3, para. 103; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 120; Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child. Advisory Opinion OC-17/99 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, para. 93. In the same regard, cf. Matter of Urso Branco Prison, Provisional Measures. Resolution of July 7, 2004, Considering Clause six; and Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri Brothers. Provisional Measures. Resolution of May 7, 2004, Considering clause thirteen. 27 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 3, para. 147; and Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 7, para. 92. 28 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 156; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 54; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 07, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 159. Cf. also, Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 3, para. 148. In the same regard, Eur.C.H.R., Assenov and others v. Bulgaria, no. 90/1997/874/1086, Judgment of 28 October 1998, par. 102; and Eur.C.H.R., Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, Judgment of 27 June 2000, pars. 89-93. 29 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 157; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 29, para. 54; and Case of Tibi, supra note 29, para. 159. 30