26 […] The obligation of the State to protect the right to life requires, by implication, that some kind of effective official investigation be carried out when an individual has been killed as a result of the use of force. Such investigations must be carried out […] regardless of whether the perpetrators are agents of the State or third parties. However, where the involvement of State agents or bodies is alleged specific rules may apply with regard to the effectiveness of the investigation. 221. The basic purpose of such an investigation is to ensure effective implementation of domestic laws that protect the right to life and, where State agents are involved, to ensure their accountability for deaths under their responsibility (free translation by the Secretariat).127 112. In view of these omissions, the Commission considers that the State did not meet the obligation to disprove the indicia of acquiescence or collaboration on the part of State agents. Owing to the shortcomings in the investigation, the Commission lacks evidence that might counter the aforesaid indicia and, therefore, finds that the State is responsible for violation of the right to life recognized in Article 4(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Joe Luis Castillo González; of the right to humane treatment enshrined in Article 5(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Yelitze Moreno de Castillo and Luis César Castillo Moreno; and of the rights of the child under Article 19 of the Convention to the detriment of the latter, all in relation to the obligations set forth in Article 1(1) of said instrument. 2. Right to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention) 113. Article 8(1) of the American Convention provides, 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. 114. For its part, Article 25 (1) of the Convention provides, 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. 115. The Commission has indicated that these articles establish the State’s obligation of providing access to justice with guarantees of legality, independence, and impartiality, within a reasonable period, together with the general obligation of providing effective judicial recourse following the violation of basic rights, including the principle that procedural instruments and mechanisms are to be effective.128 116. The Inter-American Court, for its part, has found, Under the American Convention, States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be implemented according to the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation of States to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction free and full exercise of the rights established in the Convention (Article 1(1)).129 117. The Court has also ruled, 127 ECHR. Case of Khaindrava and Dzamashvili v. Georgia, Judgment of 8 September 2010, para. 58. See also: McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of 27 September 1995, Series A no. 324. para. 49 § 161, Kaya v. Turkey, Judgment of 19 February 1998, Reports 1998-I, para. 329, § 105), Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, Judgment of 8 April 2004, paras. 220 and 221, and Mastromatteo v. Italy [GC], no. 37703/97, § 89, ECHR 2002-VIII). 128 IACHR. Application of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Case of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, February 13, 2007, par. 118. 129 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par. 287.