66 286. Article 8(1) of the American Convention provides that: “[e]very person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and with a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, 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.” 287. For its part, Article 25(1) of the Convention reads as follows: 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. 288. As the Inter-American Court wrote, the right to judicial guarantees, means that every person whose human rights have been violated has the right “to obtain from the competent State authorities a clarification of the events in which his or her rights were violated and the identification of 373 those responsible through an investigation of the facts and prosecution of those responsible.” In the case of the right to judicial protection, the Court has written that: (...) Article 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention obliges the State to guarantee to every individual access to the administration of justice and, in particular, to a simple and prompt recourse so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained for the damages suffered. Article 25 is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention by of the very rule of law in a 374 democratic society (...). 289. Thus, the State has an obligation to ensure that “each of the state’s actions that make up the investigation process, as well as the investigation in its totality, [is] oriented toward a specific purpose, the determination of the truth and the investigation, pursuit, arrest, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the events.”375 In cases of forced disappearance, the Court has written that the right of access to justice includes an investigation of the facts that strives to ascertain the fate or whereabouts of the victim and, where called for, the location of the victim’s 376 remains. The Court has also written that the right to the truth is subsumed in the right of the victim or his or her next of kin to obtain from the competent organs of the State a clarification of the violations 373 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, par.48. 374 I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza Tamayo. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, par.169; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, par.90. 375 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, par.101. 376 I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, par.192; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par.181; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2007. Series C No. 173, par.231; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, par.118.