67. As the Court has consistently expressed, in accordance with Article 25 and 8 (1) of the American Convention, States Parties are obligated to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of the human rights violations, which remedies should be substantiated in conformity with the rules of due process.155 While the obligation of the State is one of means, not of results, that “does not mean ... that the investigation can be undertaken as a mere formality condemned in advance to be fruitless.”156 Indeed, that obligation “must ... be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government.” 157 The case law also clearly states: “In light of this obligation, once the authorities have knowledge of the event, they should initiate a serious, impartial and effective investigation, ex oficio and without delay. This investigation should be undertaken utilizing all the legal means available and should be oriented toward the determination of the truth.”158 68. The Court has also categorically stated that the presumption that the crime of torture has been committed “imposes a special obligation on the State to investigate.” 159 Indeed, in the light of the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights contained in Article 1 (1) of the Convention, “the State has the obligation to commence immediately an effective investigation that may allow the identification, the trial and the punishment of those liable, whenever there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed.”160 Particularly when no complaint has been filed by the victim, but “there are indications that this has occurred, the State must open, ex officio and promptly, an impartial, independent and thorough investigation leading to the determination of the nature and origin of the injuries noted, together with the identification of those responsible, and their prosecution.”161 Where a person claims that their statement or confession was obtained through coercion, ���States have an obligation to verify, above all, the veracity of that claim by conducting an investigation with due diligence.”162 In addition, however, “the burden of proof cannot be on the claimant; rather, the State must demonstrate that the confession was voluntary.”163 69. The Court has indicated that “[t]he right to presumption of innocence, as it is understood from Article 8 (2) of the Convention, requires that the State should not convict an individual informally or emit an opinion in public that contributes to forming public opinion, while the criminal responsibility of that individual has not been proved.”164 Consequently, the exhibition of a person before the media as the perpetrator of a crime when they have not been legally prosecuted and convicted constitutes a violation of Article 8 (2) of the Convention.165 70. As is established in the findings of fact, the petitioners repeatedly denounced that they had been victims of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and that their statements were obtained under coercion. The State asserts that those allegations were investigated but provides no proof to support that immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process. After all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State.” The Plurinational State of Bolivia deposited its instrument of ratification of that Convention on November 21, 2006. 155 I/A Court H.R., Las Dos Erres Massacre Judgment, par. 104; I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C. No. 1, par. 91; Zambrano-Vélez et al. Judgment, par. 114; Miguel Castro Castro Prison Judgment, par. 381. 156 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C. No. 196, par. 101; Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 177; Case of Heliodoro-Portugal v. Panama, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of August 12, 2008, Series C. No. 186, par. 144; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2008, Series C. No. 192, par. 100. 157 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Judgment, par. 177. 158 I/A Court H.R., Case of García-Prieto et al v. El Salvador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C. No. 168, par. 101. 159 I/A Court H.R., Maritza Urrutia Judgment, par. 127. 160 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia, Judgment of September 12, 2005, Series C. No. 132, par. 54; Ticona Estrada Judgment, par. 94; Case of Mendoza et al. v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C. No. 260, par. 234. 161 I/A Court H.R., Galindo Cárdenas et al. Judgment, par. 261 and footnote 231. 162 I/A Court H.R., Case of Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 2, 2015, Series C. No. 300 (Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Judgment) par. 86. 163 I/A Court H.R., Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Judgment, par. 86. 164 I/A Court H.R., Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C. No. 119, (Lori Berenson Judgment), par. 160. 165 I/A Court H.R., Lori Berenson Judgment, pars. 158-161. 19