20 60. This Tribunal has recognized in previous cases that it is a basic principle of the law of international State responsibility that every State is internationally responsible for acts and omissions of any of its authorities or organs in violation of internationally recognized rights, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention37. In addition, Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention determine, with regard to the actions and omissions of internal judicial authorities, the scope of the abovementioned principle of State responsibility for the actions of any State organ.38 61. States are bound by a general duty to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention to any person subject to their jurisdiction. In accordance with the American Convention, one of the affirmative measures that States Parties are required to take to fulfill their guarantee obligation consists in providing effective judicial remedies in line with the rules of due process, and seeking the restoration of the violated right, if possible, and reparation of any damage caused.39 62. The duty to investigate must be discharged “in a serious manner, not as a mere formality that is doomed to fail from the very beginning and it must pursue a goal and be undertaken by the State as its own legal duty rather than a mere processing of private interests, dependent upon the procedural initiative of the victim or the victim’s next of kin or on the contribution of evidence by private parties, without an actual quest for truth on the part of the public authorities.”40 Due diligence requires that the body in charge of the investigation take all such steps and make all such inquiries as may be necessary to achieve the intended goal. Otherwise, the investigation is not effective in the terms of the Convention.41 63. In view of the foregoing, the Court will analyze: A) the steps taken prior to the criminal proceeding; B) the steps taken before the criminal jurisdiction, in the light of the standards laid down in the American Convention. * * * 37 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez, supra note 14, paras. 164, 169 and 170; Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 9, paras. 67 and 68; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al., supra note 9, para. 103; and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz, supra note 13, para. 79. 38 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C. No. 63, para. 220; Case of Ximenes-Lopes. supra note 19, para. 173; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 141; and Case of López-Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 28. 39 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 381; Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 9, para. 145; and Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al., supra note 9, para. 114. 40 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez, supra note 14, para. 177; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 39, para. 255; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al., supra note 9, para. 120; and Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz, supra note 13, para. 131. 41 Cf. Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 83; and Case of Gómez-Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 80.