118. In that regard, the Commission should clarify as a preliminary matter that it is not for it to determine if the police agents bear criminal liability for the death of Mr. Valencia Hinojosa, but rather to weigh, based on the information available and bearing in mind the obligations under the American Convention and the applicable rules governing burden of proof, if the acts of those agents engaged the international responsibility of the State. 119. The Commission will determine, first, if the investigation conducted by the State, which concluded in favor of the suicide hypothesis, was compatible with the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection. Second, taking into account the series of circumstantial evidence pointed out by the petitioners and the way in which the investigation was conducted, the Commission will assess if Mr. Valencia Hinojosa’s death is attributable to the State of Ecuador. Third, the Commission will analyze if the right to humane treatment of Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa’s next of kin was violated by the Ecuadorian State. A. The rights to a fair trial and judicial protection in relation to the investigations and proceedings instituted as a result of the death of Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa 120. When someone has been killed in violent circumstances, the Inter-American Court has ruled that Article 8 (right to a fair trial) and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the Convention entail the obligation to carry out ex officio, a prompt, serious, impartial and effective investigation as a fundamental element essential for the protection of the rights affected. 118 Under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, that duty requires the State to provide a simple and prompt recourse, so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained for the damages suffered. 119 For its part, Article 2 obligates the State to suppress laws and practices that imply a violation of the guarantees established in the Convention as well as to adopt laws and implement practices leading to the effective observance of the investigation required.120 121. The Commission considers that the above obligation becomes particularly acute when the suicide hypothesis is disputed. Thus, in cases where this hypothesis arises in circumstances potentially engaging the responsibility of the State, the European Court has found that the State has a duty “to ensure, by all means at its disposal, an adequate response ... so that the legislative ... framework set up to protect the right to life is properly implemented and any breaches of that right are repressed and punished.” 121 122. The European Court has found that among the requirements to be met by an investigation that concludes that a person's death was the result of a suicide are the following: (i) that the persons responsible for the investigation must be independent from those implicated in the events; 122 (ii) that the competent authorities must act with exemplary diligence and promptness; (iii) that investigations must be initiated motu proprio; and (iv) that the circumstances in which the incident took place and any shortcomings must be ascertained.123 118 196, par. 75. I/A Court H.R. Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 119I/A Court H.R., Loayza Tamayo Case, Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, par. 169; I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, par. 91; I/A Court H.R., Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, par. 90. 120 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 118; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, par. 83, and The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, par. 85. 121See ECHR, Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 64. 122See ECHR, Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 64. 123See ECHR, Sergey Shevchenko v. Ukraine, no. 32478/02, § 65.