B. Rights to judicial guarantees152 and judicial protection153 in relation to article 1.1 of the American Convention 1. Standards of due diligence, officiousness and reasonable time period 80. The Inter-American Court has established that "as a result of the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, States are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law."154 81. The case law of the Inter-American system provides that the State is obliged, once it has knowledge of a violation of human rights, in particular of the rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty,155 to initiate ex officio and immediately, a genuine, impartial and effective investigation,156 which must be carried out within a reasonable time.157 This implies the right of victims and their families to have state authorities initiate proceedings against the alleged perpetrators of these crimes; and if applicable, to impose the pertinent penalties, and to compensate the damages and losses suffered.158 82. Although the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means, rather than results, the State must undertake it as its own legal duty and not as a mere formality predestined to be ineffective,159 or as a mere reaction to private interests, which would depend on the procedural initiative of the victims or their family members or on the submission of evidentiary elements by private individuals.160 83. The Inter-American Court has indicated that the duty to investigate with due diligence implies that the investigations must be carried out utilizing all available legal means and be oriented toward determining the truth.161 In addition, the Commission and the Court have specified that in cases of human rights violations, the State can be found responsible for not ordering and carrying out pertinent tests in accordance with the duty of due diligence, and that the investigation should be oriented to explore all possible avenues of investigation to permit the identification of the perpetrators of this violation.162 84. Finally, with respect to the principle of a reasonable period of time contemplated in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, the Inter-American Court has established that it is necessary to take into account three elements to determine the reasonableness of the period in conducting proceedings: a) the complexity of Article 8.1 establishes: 1. “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within 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.” 153 Article 25 establishes, in relevant part: 1. “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.” 154 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007, para. 124; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007, para. 145; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006, para. 381; and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Judgment of November 24, 2006, para. 106. 155 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. Judgment of July 10, 2007, para. 100. 156 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Judgment of November 20, 2007, para. 101; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004, para. 146; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. Judgment of July 10, 2007, para. 130. 157 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003, para. 114; Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007, para. 146; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006, para. 382. 158 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. Judgment of November 20, 2007, para. 103; Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003, para. 114; and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006, para. 382. 159 I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 177; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. Judgment of July 10, 2007, para. 131; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2007, para. 120. 160 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 177; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. Judgment of July 4, 2007, para. 120. 161 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. Judgment of November 20, 2007, para. 101. 162 IACHR. Report No. 25/09 Merits (Sebastião Camargo Filho) Brazil, March 19, 2009, para. 109; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999, para. 230; Case of J. v. Peru. Judgment of November 27, 2013, para. 344 (citing Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003, para. 128). 152