56 investigate these aspects represented an additional factor contributing to impunity in both cases, obstructing the determination of the truth and ultimately the punishment of those responsible. 4. The right to a diligent and reasonably prompt investigation regarding the unlawful and arbitrary detention and the violations of the right humane treatment endured by the victim Eduardo José Landaeta 282. As indicated by the facts in this case, the Venezuelan State did not take undertake any procedures to investigate the conduct of the police officers who unlawfully and arbitrarily arrested Eduardo José Landaeta and then failed to make him available to judicial authority. 283. Nor did the State initiate any investigation into the conduct of the police officers who had custody of Eduardo José Landaeta from the time of his arrest, in order to determine who was responsible for the signs of torture revealed on his body during the autopsy. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has stated that the obligation to guarantee the right recognized in Article 5.1 of the Convention entails the duty of the State to adequately investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading 309 treatment. 284. The Commission emphasizes the case law of the Inter-American Court in the sense that in those cases where alleged torture or mistreatment have been claimed, the time elapsed till [sic] the performance of the pertinent medical examinations is essential in order to unquestionably determine the existence of damage, specially [sic] when there are no witnesses other than the perpetrators and the victims themselves, and consequently, the evidence may be scarce. Thus, it may be concluded that in order for an investigation regarding facts involving torture to be effective, 310 the same must be promptly conducted. 285. In addition there was no investigation as to why Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, a minor, was arrested without a court order and in the absence of an in flagrante situation, without his parents being informed, without any judicial control and without notice to the specialized authority for the defense of children. 286. In this section, there is no need to perform a detailed analysis as to whether or not the State acted with due diligence and within a reasonable period of time, since on the subject of violations of the right to humane treatment and personal liberty the inaction of the domestic authorities was absolute. It is sufficient to conclude on this point that the Venezuelan State failed to provide an effective judicial remedy for Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías’ next of kin with respect to the violations of his right to humane treatment and the unlawful deprivation of his liberty. 5. Conclusion 287. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State of Venezuela did not provide the Landaeta Mejías brothers’ next of kin an adequate and effective remedy, with the guarantees of due process, in order to shed light on the facts and impose the appropriate punishment for the death of the two brothers, as well as the unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías’ liberty and the violation of his right to humane treatment. As a result, the State is responsible for violating the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations indicated in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of María Magdalena Mejías (mother), Ignacio Landaeta Muñoz (father), 309 I/A Court HR., Vargas Areco Case. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C, No. 155. para. 103. para. 78; and I/A Court HR., Ximenes Lopes Case. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C, No. 149. para. 147. 310 I/A Court HR., Bueno Alves Case. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C, No. 164. para. 111.