29 99. The representatives reiterated the Commission’s arguments on the violation of Article 8 of the Convention. They also stated that the individuals accused of the offenses of unlawful deprivation of liberty and unlawful coercion to the detriment of Juan Carlos Bayarri enjoy “[t]otal protection and strong institutional support […] from the Argentine Federal Police authorities” and that there has been “[a] systematic institutional cover-up [and] a total lack of willingness and interest by the Argentine State to punish and/or even investigate those responsible for the offenses committed by judges and judicial officials [who] resolutely and systematically protected the federal police agents who were the authors of the offense of torture and other human rights violations […].” 100. The State did not dispute the facts that form the purpose of the instant case. However, it indicated that the alleged violations had already been resolved in the domestic jurisdiction in favor of the alleged victim (supra paras. 29 and 30). Regarding the supposed delay in the hearing of the cases, the State indicated that it acknowledged the procedural delays that occurred prior to June 1, 2004, the date on which Mr. Bayarri was acquitted and released. Nevertheless, regarding the action in which Mr. Bayarri is the complainant, the State argued that the delay as of that date could be attributed to the procedural conduct of the victim. Even though an order was issued on May 30, 2006, to close the preliminary investigation stage and submit the case to an oral proceeding, Mr. Bayarri “[r]esolutely opposed the request of those accused to exercise the option that the judicial proceedings against them be processed under the national Code of Criminal Procedure that was in force […]” and requested that the previous procedural code be applied. The State alleged that these claims were rejected as unfounded, so that “[i]t was only on March 4, 2008, that the prosecutor had the procedural opportunity to submit the case to an oral proceeding.” 101. Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes the guidelines for the so-called “due process of law,” which implies, among other matters, the right of every person to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial judge or tribunal, previously established by law, to determine his rights.93 102. Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes, in broad terms, the obligation of the States to offer to all persons subject to their jurisdiction an effective judicial remedy for protection against acts that violate their fundamental rights. It also stipulates that the guarantee embodied therein is applicable not only with regard to the rights contained in the Convention, but also to those rights that are recognized by the Constitution or law.94 103. Based on the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the States are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations, which must be substantiated in accordance with judicial guarantees, all within the general obligation of the States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights established by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).95 93 Cf. Genie Lacayo. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 74; Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 56; and case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 14, para. 79. 94 Cf. Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 90; case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 93, para. 57; and case of Castañeda Gutman, supra note 35, para. 78. See also, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 23; 95 Cf. case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 9, para. 91; case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 93, para. 58; and case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 14, para. 77.