232. Based on all the above findings, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to protection of the family, embodied in Article 17(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo, Aracelly Román Amariles, Mateo Vélez Román, and Juliana Vélez Román, and also for violating the right to special protection of children embodied in Article 19 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mateo and Juliana Vélez Román. XI RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 233. First, it should be recalled that the State acknowledged partially its responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1) 226 and 25227 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, for three reasons (supra para. 14(c)): (i) the absence of “a serious investigation that would have allowed the perpetrators of the attack suffered by Mr. […] Vélez Restrepo on August 29, 1996, to be determined and punished under criminal law;” (ii) because “[n]o serious investigation was conducted that that would have allowed the presumed authors of the threats of which Mr. […] Vélez Restrepo was presumably a victim to be determined and punished under criminal law,” and (iii) because “[t]here was a violation of reasonable time in the investigation underway for the presumed attempted kidnapping of Mr. Vélez Restrepo on October 6, 199[7].” 234. In its brief with observations on the State’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility, the Commission stated that the dispute that subsisted with regard to the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention was the alleged violation in relation to “the proceedings under the military criminal justice in the instant case.” 235. The Court must rule on the matter that remains in dispute concerning the alleged violation of the principle of the natural judge, owing to the investigation conducted by the military criminal jurisdiction into the attack perpetrated by members of the Army against Mr. Vélez on August 29, 1996, and make some additional considerations on the lack of effective and diligent investigations in the instant case (infra section B). A) Alleged violation of the guarantee of a natural judge Observations of the Commission and arguments of the parties 236. The Commission and the representative indicated that the assignment of the criminal investigation into the attack on Mr. Vélez at Caquetá in 1996 to the military criminal jurisdiction “not only formally violated the right of access to justice of Mr. Vélez, but also 226 Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial Court, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 227 Article 25 of the American Convention stipulates: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or Court for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 68