124 1. 2. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal 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. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 195. The Court has asserted that, pursuant to the American Convention, the States Parties are under the obligation to provide effective legal remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), and these remedies must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due legal process (Article 8(1)), all of this set within the general obligation of the States themselves to ensure free and full exercise of the rights embodied in the Convention, for all persons under their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).246 196. During the proceeding of the case before this Court, the State has argued that it did not breach Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention; it has argued that domestic remedies must be assessed in a comprehensive manner, as the proceedings before criminal justice together with the administrative-law and disciplinary proceedings have effectively enabled attainment of the current results. Both the Commission and the representatives deem that the State has breached said provisions for a number of reasons that include, inter alia, the deficient and incomplete investigations carried out, the time taken by the proceedings, and the lack of effectiveness and results of the latter, which have led to impunity regarding most of those responsible for the massacre. 197. The responsibility of the State has been established for violations of the rights to life, to humane treatment, to personal liberty (supra paras. 130 to 146), to the rights of the child and to freedom of movement and residence (supra paras. 151 to 163, and 168 to 189) to the detriment of the victims of the Mapiripán Massacre and their next of kin, committed by paramilitary groups with the collaboration, by action and omission, of agents of the State. The facts demonstrate the extralegal execution of approximately 49 victims. 198. The Court has verified that criminal proceedings were opened before criminal military and regular courts, as well as administrative-law proceedings and disciplinary proceedings, in connection with the facts of the instant case (supra paras. 96.68 to 96.136). The Court will consider those domestic proceedings that are significant in the instant case, with the aim of establishing whether there has been a 246 See Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 4, para. 142; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 11, para. 76, and Case of the 19 Tradesmen. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 194.