45 a) Failure to comply with the Convention upon the criminal proceedings conducted by judicial authorities regarding the deprivation of the right to life of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García 144. Article 25(1) of the Convention provides for the obligation of States to guarantee the right of all persons under its jurisdiction to an effective judicial remedy against violations of their fundamental rights.81 Mere availability of said remedies will not suffice; these remedies must be effective; i.e. they must be suitable to offer results or answers to violations of the rights protected under the Convention.82 This safeguard is one of the cornerstones of the American Convention and the democratic Constitutional State itself, as set forth in the Convention.83 145. To that respect, this Court has stated that any remedy that is illusory due to the general conditions of the country or the specific circumstances of a given case cannot be deemed an effective remedy.84 146. The effective remedy of Article 25 must be processed in accordance with the rules of due process of law contained in Article 8 of the Convention. This Article provides that the victims of human rights violations or their next of kin must enjoy ample possibilities of being heard and participating in the related proceedings, in order to clearly establish the facts and the punishment applicable to the perpetrators of those acts, and to seek an appropriate relief.85 147. After the arrest, mistreatment, torture and extra-judicial execution of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García, the first remedy the State should have attempted is an efficient investigation and judicial proceedings aimed at clarifying the events, punishing the perpetrators of the acts and granting an appropriate compensation. The family of Mr. Bernabé Baldeón-García denounced the events to various authorities; however, the State failed to carry out an effective investigation. 148. In this respect, the State admitted that it failed to carry out an effective investigation in the instant case, infringing the obligation set forth in Article 8(1) of the American Convention (supra para. 40). However, the State claimed that this situation only lasted until the commencement of the transition to democracy by the end of 2000 (supra para. 40). 149. This Court believes it is necessary to reaffirm that, even though in 2000 the State resumed the investigation of the events –due to the insistence of Mr. BaldeónGarcía’s family,– the State’s responsibility results from the international illegal act 81 Cf. Case of Acevedo - Jaramillo et el., supra note 6, para. 213; Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 6, para. 137; and Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 10, para. 113. 82 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 213; Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 6, para. 137; and Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 10, para. 184. Cf. Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 6, para. 138; Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 10, para. 184; and Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 3, para. 93. 83 Cf. Case of 19 Tradesmen, supra note 45, para. 192; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 77; and Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 72, para. 116. 84 85 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.), supra note 47, para. 227.