83 The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature. The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction. [...] 8. The States Parties shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case. Likewise, if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process. After all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by the State. 218. This Court has had the occasion to apply the Inter-American Convention against torture and to declare the responsibility of a State owing to its violation132. 219. In the instant case, it is the Court's responsibility to exercise its competence to apply the Inter-American Convention against Torture, which entered into force on February 28, 1987. 220. As has been shown, Bámaca Velásquez was submitted to torture while he was secretly imprisoned in military installations (supra 121 i, l). Consequently, it is clear that the State did not effectively prevent such acts and that, by not investigating them, it failed to punish those responsible. 221. Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture expressly embodies the State's obligation to proceed immediately de oficio in cases such as this one. Therefore, the Court has stated that “in proceedings on human rights violations, the State's defense cannot rest on the impossibility of the plaintiff to obtain evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the State's cooperation”133. However, in this case, the State did not act in accordance with these provisions. 132 Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 185; Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 249; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 50, para. 136. 133 Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 56, para. 189; Villagrán Morales et al. Case (the “Street Children” Case), supra note 52, para. 251; Caso Gangaram Panday, supra note 86, para. 49; Godínez Cruz Case, supra note 53, para. 141 and Velásquez Rodríguez Case, supra note 53, para. 135.