73 189. There was a lack of due diligence by the Government authorities in failing to immediately commence the investigation of the events, which prevented, among other things, the timely preservation and gathering of evidence and the identification of eyewitnesses. In addition, the Government officials did not preserve the evidence or inspect the Guararapes Rest Home, nor did they conduct a reenactment of the events to explain the circumstances in which Mr. Ximenes-Lopes died. 190. Owing to the defective investigation, the relatives of the alleged victim informed several entities of the events connected with the death of Mr. XimenesLopes and claimed for justice in the case. Albertina Viana-Lopes, mother of the alleged victim, made a claim before the Control, Evaluation and Audit Municipal Coordinator for the Health and Social Services Bureau, and Irene Ximenes-LopesMiranda, sister of the alleged victim, filed a claim before the Civil and Human Rights Commission of the Legislative Assembly of the state of Ceará (supra para. 112(17)). 191. All the above-mentioned deficiencies show the negligence of the authorities responsible for examining the circumstances of the death of Mr. Damião XimenesLopes and constitute a severe breach of the duty to investigate the events.135 B) Criminal Proceedings 192. Under Article 25(1) of the Convention, the States have the duty to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction have effective judicial recourse against violations of their fundamental rights.136 Not only must recourse be provided, but it also must be effective, i.e., it must be capable of producing results or providing answers to violations of rights established by the Convention. 137This safeguard is one of the cornerstones of the American Convention and the Rule of Law in a democratic society, as set forth in the Convention.138 193. The effective recourse under Article 25 of the Convention must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law set forth in Article 8 thereof. Consequently, the victims of violations of human rights, or their next of kin, 135 Cf. Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, para. 178; and Case of Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 21, para. 228. 136 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 144; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 4, para. 214; and Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 121, para. 137. 137 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 144; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 4, para. 213; and Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 121, para. 137. 138 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 144; Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 121, para. 138; Case of Palamara Iribarne, supra note 31, para. 184; Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 93; Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No 127, para. 169; Case of Serrano Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 75; Case of Tibi, supra note 111, para. 131; Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 108, para. 193; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 111, para. 117; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 30, para. 121; Case of Cantos, supra note 126, para. 52; and Case of Hilaire, supra note 126, para. 150; Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No 79, para. 112; Case of Ivcher Bronstein. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No 74, para. 135; Case of the Constitutional Court. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No 71, para. 90; Case of Bámaca Velásquez, supra note 111, para. 191; Case of Cantoral Benavides, supra note 111, para. 163; Case of Durand and Ugarte. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 101; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 108, para. 234.