settled by the Supreme Court in favor of the military courts for the accused commandos; (3) the military courts ruled to dismiss the case in 2003, and the file was later closed permanently; (4) the ordinary courts pursued the trial against the authorities involved, which was later joined with a process on criminal complicity; (5) at the time the case was submitted to this Court, there was as yet no final verdict in the process underway in the ordinary courts; (6) as a supervening event, the Third Special Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima handed down a verdict on October 15, 2012, acquitting all the defendants with the exception of one of the accused who was in contempt; (7) the Transitory Criminal Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided on July 24, 2013 not to vacate the ruling; (8) a criminal trial begin in 2007 against former President Fujimori Fujimori and one other person, and (9) a new investigation is currently pending for the facts involving Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez (supra paras. 174 to 245). 345. Based on this account, and bearing in mind the Commission’s claims in its Report on the Merits No. 66/11 and the arguments of the parties and the Commission before this Court, the Court will proceed with a general discussion of the obligation to investigate in the instant case, and then address the specific arguments. A. General discussion of the obligation to investigate in the instant case 346. The Court has repeatedly held that the States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Art. 1(1)). 422 347. This duty to “guarantee” rights carries with it the positive obligation for the State to undertake a series of actions, depending on the specific substantive right at issue. 423 For example, in cases of violent death, the Court has held that a serious, independent, impartial and effective investigation undertaken ex officio and without delay is a fundamental and conditioning element for protecting rights violated in situations of this kind.424 348. This general obligation comes particularly to the fore in cases when agents of the state have made use of lethal force. As soon as the state is aware that its security agents have used firearms with deadly consequences, it is obliged to initiate, ex officio and without delay, a serious, independent, impartial and effective investigation to determine whether the deprivation of life was arbitrary. This obligation is a fundamental and conditioning element for protecting the right to life that is negated in these situations. 425 Moreover, if actions that violate human rights are not investigated conscientiously, in a sense they would have the approval of public authorities, which would undercut the State’s international responsibility.426 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 91, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 237. 422 423 Cf. Case of Cantoral Huamaní y García Santa Cruz v. Peru, supra, para.101. Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 143, y Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 101. 424 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 88, and Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 101. 425 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra, para. 145, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 102. 426