33 108. Based on the considerations above, the Court finds that the State did not fulfill its obligations to respect and guarantee the right to life of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette KawasFernández, which constitutes a violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) thereof. ii) Right to justice of the relatives of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández 109. The fulfillment of the obligation to undertake a serious, complete and effective investigation of the events, in accordance with the guarantees of due process of law, entailed an examination of the term of the investigation131 and “the legal means available”132 to the relatives of the deceased victim, in order to guarantee that their testimony is received during investigation and judicial proceedings, and that they may openly participate therein. 110. In that regard, the Court has repeatedly maintained that the States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), and that these remedies must be provided in accordance with due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the framework of the general State obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all those within its jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).133 111. Even though the State has acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1), the Court finds it is convenient to analyze if the proceedings initiated in the domestic jurisdiction for the events of the instant case respected the right of the relatives of Mrs. Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández to be heard subject to due legal guarantees and within a reasonable term, and if an effective resource was provided to guarantee the rights of access to justice, truth and reparation. 112. As regards the fairness of the term, the Court has stated that the right to fair trial should guarantee, within reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their relatives to have adopted all measures necessary to know the truth about the facts and to punish those responsible.134 The Court found that it is necessary to take into account four elements to determine the fairness of such term: a) the complexity of the matter, b) the procedural activity of the interested party, c) the conduct of judicial authorities,135 and d) the impairment to the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings.136 131 Cf. Case of Genie-Lacayo V. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, para. 79; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, para 140. 132 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) Merits, supra note 14, para. 173. 133 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez V. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91; Case of Yvon Neptune V. Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 77; and Case of Castañeda-Gutman V. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 34. 134 Cf. Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; Case of Tiu Tojin. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 96, para. 72; and Case of Ticona-Estrada et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, para. 79. 135 Cf. Case of Genie-Lacayo. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 131, para. 77; Case of SuárezRosero. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 72; Case of Bayarri V. Argentina. Preliminary