50 accused, except for that of Mr. Juan Antonio Elio Rivero, who benefited from a lighter sentence.188 A.3. Appeal: nullity of the statute of limitation and penalty 150. Due to the submission of various remedies in cassation, on June 2, 2010, the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation of Bolivia issued a judgment annulling the statute of limitation declared previously189 (supra para. 148). Subsequently, on August 16, 2010 that same Chamber issued a judgment convicting two of the defendants for the crime of forced disappearance and another defendant for complicity in the commission of said crime, and confirming the absolution of another defendant,190 regarding the facts occured only to José Luis Ibsen Peña. B. On the lack of a diligent and effective investigation in the criminal proceeding 151. The Court has established that States are obligated to provide effective judicial remedies to individuals who allege being victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1.1).191 152. The right to access justice implies the effective determination of the facts under investigation and, if applicable, of the corresponding criminal responsibilities within a reasonable time. Therefore, considering the need to guarantee the rights of the injured parties, a prolonged delay may constitute in itself a violation to the right to a fair trial.192 In addition, when dealing with a forced disappearance, the right to access justice entails that the investigation into the facts seeks to determine the fate or whereabouts of the victims (supra paras. 64 and 65). 153. Even though the Court has established that the duty to investigate is one of means and not results,193 this does not mean, however, that the investigation may be carried out 188 Cf. Ruling of the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of the District of Santa Cruz, issued on September 28, 2009 (case files of appendixes to the answer to the application, appendix 15, folios 11328 to 11343). 189 Cf. Judgment of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, issued on June 2, 2010 (case file on the merits, volumen V, folios 1960 to 1968). 190 Cf. Judgment of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, issued on August 16, 2010 (case file on the merits, volume V, folios 1997 to 2006). 191 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 104, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 190. 192 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94. para. 145; Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 132, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 196. 193 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para. 177; Caso Heliodoro Portugal Vs. Panamá, supra nota 1, para. 144, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 192.