criminal proceedings that were opened owing to his death. 242 It also stressed that, even though the statements of the agents who were transferring Eduardo Landaeta and of the eyewitnesses exonerated the agents in whose custody he was travelling, the prosecutor had decided that their guilt or innocence should be proved in a trial. In addition, the State indicated that, at the present time, criminal proceedings were still underway in which the presumed criminal responsibility of the agents who transferred Eduardo Landaeta would be elucidated because, although the police version of the events is that the vehicle in which Eduardo Landaeta was being transferred was intercepted by armed and hooded individuals and it was the latter who killed the minor Landaeta, the police agents could be connected to his death. 243 In this regard, the State indicated that, on April 4, 2014, a new oral trial had begun, after the appeal filed by the Fifteenth Prosecutor to refer the case back to the stage of a new oral trial had been declared admissible. 213. In relation to the reasonable time in both cases, the State argued that “[i]t was problems related to the Transitory Procedural Regime in Venezuela that had caused the judicial delay in the case of the Landaeta brothers. The Venezuelan State has explained the Transitory Procedural Regime that was established in the country to the Judges of the Court in the cases of the Barrios Family and Néstor Luis Uzcátegui decided by the Inter-American Court.” The State also indicated that “it only admits as certain in both trials regarding the Landaeta brothers, that there was a judicial delay in the investigations caused by the new Code of Criminal Procedure […].” Accordingly, the State concluded that it was not responsible for the violation of the rights of the Landaeta brothers and asked the Court to reject the claims of the representatives and of the Commission. B. Considerations of the Court 214. The Court has established in its consistent case law that the positive measures that a State must adopt in order to ensure the rights recognized in the Convention include the obligation to investigate human rights violations. Compliance with this obligations consists not only in preventing violations, but also in investigating the violation of rights recognized in this instrument, as well as endeavoring, if possible, to restore the right that has been violated and to make reparation, as appropriate, for the harm caused by the violation of human rights. 244 215. The Court has indicated that States are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which must be implemented in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation of the States to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the right recognized in the Convention (Article 1(1)). 245 216. The obligation to investigate means that, when the State authorities become aware of an incident, they should open, ex officio and immediately, a serious, impartial and effective investigation by all available legal means aimed at determining the truth and at 242 The main procedures described by the State in its answering brief included interviews with witnesses and the police agents who were carrying out the transfer, the autopsy, the analysis of the gunpowder residue on the police agents, inspections of the scene of the crime and the body, forensic and hematological tests, topographic survey, and ballistics trajectory, and reconstruction of the incident. 243 The State clarified that the failure to make an official inspection of the vehicle that was transferring Eduardo Landaeta was due to the fact that it was a police intelligence unit that, at the time of the events, was operating incognito in the strategic fight against crime. 244 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra, paras. 166 and 176, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 245 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 91, and Case of Gutiérrez and family members supra, para. 97. 56