unlawful acts; and, if applicable, the pertinent penalties will be imposed, and the losses suffered by the next of kin repaired174. 183. Likewise, the Court has understood that, for an effective recourse to exist, it is not enough for it to be established by the Constitution or law, or be formally admissible; rather it needs to be truly appropriate for establishing whether there has been a human rights violation and for providing whatever is necessary to repair this175. The same court also noted that these domestic recourses must be available to the interested parties and result in an effective and justified decision on the matter raised, as well as potentially providing adequate reparation176. 184. In turn, the Inter-American Court has noted that the duty to investigate must be done with "due diligence" implying that investigation should be undertaken utilizing all the legal means available and should be oriented toward the determination of the truth177. In the same vein, the Court has indicated that the State has a duty to ensure that everything you need to know the truth about what happened, and that the possible responsible parties are punished178, involving every State institution179. The Court has also said that it is particularly important that the competent authorities adopt all reasonable measures to guarantee the necessary probative material in order to carry out the investigation180. 185. Taking into account the parameters indicated, the Commission will examine whether, in this case the State of Venezuela offered to the victims an effective remedy to protect them of violations of their human rights through a serious and diligent investigation within a reasonable time. 186. The Commission notes that the victims presented both an amparo remedy and a criminal complaint. The amparo was filed on July 22, 2004 while the criminal complaint was filed on May 27, 2004. The amparo was finally resolved unfavorably on September 9, 2005; while the criminal investigation was dismissed, a decision that became final after the rejection of the appeal remedy (casación) on September 27, 2005. 187. The motivations of the judicial authorities in both processes are similar in that both remedies concluded that the victims did not prove the political discrimination claimed, and assumed as valid the consistent explanation on the implementation of the seventh clause of the contract that granted discretional 174 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 103; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 2, 2008 Series C No. 181, para. 382. 175 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 125; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 61; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 136. 176 /A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 126. 177 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 101. 178 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 179 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 130; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 120; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 66. 180 I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para 122. 37