too, is to be seen against a broader backdrop already analyzed by the Commission and the Inter-American Court in the case of Ticona Estrada et al v. Bolivia, on the policy of repression against left-wing groups and any person or organization opposing the Military Junta. 84. Thus, the Commission deems it sufficiently well established that the forced disappearance of Mr. Flores Bedregal stemmed from a determination by the de facto government and security forces acting in that context that the activities going on in the COB on July 17, 1980 had to be repressed in accordance with the above-mentioned policy pursued by the armed forces, whereby the exercise of political rights and freedom of association provided the motive for the attack, and repression of those rights the consequence. In conclusion, the State of Bolivia is internationally responsible for violation of the rights established in Articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal. C. Right to due guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights) in connection with the obligation to respect human rights and the duty to adopt measures under domestic law (Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same Convention107) and Articles I.b and III108 of the IACFDP. 85. It follows from inter-American jurisprudence that insofar as a missing person's report is concerned the response of the State is inevitably linked to the protection of the life and well-being of the person reported missing. Whether the disappearance may have occurred at the hands of private citizens or at the hands of state agents is immaterial where duty of the State to render an immediate and exhaustive response is concerned. The Commission reiterates that when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has been disappeared, it is essential for prosecutorial and judicial authorities to take prompt and immediate action by ordering timely and necessary measures to determine the whereabouts of the victim or the place where he or she might be deprived of liberty.”109 86. The Court has found that the States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to 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).110 87. Thus, the Court has held that the obligation to investigate entails that, as soon as the State authorities become aware of the facts, they must initiate, ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation by all lawful means available in order to determine the truth and to ensure the pursuit, capture, trial, and eventual punishment, if applicable, of all the authors of the facts,111 especially when State agents Article 2 of the American Convention establishes as follows: Domestic Legal Effects [duty to adopt measures under domestic law]. Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. Articles 8, 25, and 1.1 of the Convention were addressed in the foregoing section. 108 Said article establishes that the States Parties to said Convention undertake to "punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories.” 109 IACHR. Report No. 111/09. Case 11.324, Merits. Narciso González Medina. Dominican Republic, November 10, 2009. Para. 225; I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 134; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 221; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 167. See, also, Matter of Natera Balboa Provisional Measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of February 1, 2010, preambular par. 13, and Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional measures regarding Venezuela. Order of the Court, August 29, 2013, Sixth preambular paragraph. 110 I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para 97; and Case of Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 215. 111 I/A Court H.R. Velásquez Rodríguez Case. v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 177; Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 107 23