113. Additionally, it can be derived from Article 8 of the Convention that the victims of human rights violations or their relatives must have ample opportunity to be heard and to take action in the corresponding proceedings, both in the clearing up of the facts and punishment of those responsible, as well as in the search for due redress. Likewise, the Court has found that the States have the obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to individuals who allege having been the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be established in keeping with the rules of due process (Article 8(1)), all within States’ general obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights granted by the Convention to all individuals under its jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). 111 114. In addition, when an enforced disappearance is at issue, and as one of its objectives is to prevent the exercise of legal remedies and the pertinent procedural guarantees, if the victim cannot access the available remedies, it is crucial for family members or other individuals close to the victim to be able to access prompt and efficient judicial proceedings or remedies as a means for determining the victim’s whereabouts or state of health or to identify the authority that ordered the deprivation of liberty or carried it out. 112 115. Consequently, the Court has found that whenever there is enough reason to suspect that a person has been subjected to an enforced disappearance, a criminal investigation must be launched. 113 This obligation is independent of a complaint being brought, as in cases of enforced disappearance, international law and the general duty to guarantee impose an obligation to investigate the case ex officio, without delay, and in a serious, impartial and effective manner. 114 The investigation must therefore be carried out using all legal means available and oriented toward determining the truth, as well as toward pursuing, capturing, prosecution, and possibly punishing all the perpetrators of and masterminds behind the facts, especially when agents of the State are or could be involved. 115 All State authorities, public officials, or private parties who have learned about actions taken to forcibly disappear persons must in every case report them immediately. 116 116. The right to access to justice requires that the determination of the facts under investigation be made effective - along with the corresponding criminal liabilities, where appropriate - in a reasonable period of time. For this reason, attending to the need to guarantee the rights of injured individuals, an extended delay can end up in itself constituting a violation of judicial guarantees. 117 In addition, when an enforced disappearance is at issue, the right to access to justice includes the right to have the investigation into the facts determine the fate or whereabouts of the victims. 118 111 Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 86. 112 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 71, para. 64; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 64, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 185. 113 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 23, para. 143; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 70, para. 108, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 186. 114 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 70, para. 108, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 186. 115 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 155. 116 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro V. Perú, supra note 71, para. 65; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 65, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 76, para. 186. 117 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 Chitay Nech et al. V. Guatemala, supra note 69, para. 196, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 152. 118 Cf. Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 23, para. 191, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 152. 36