35 160. The IACHR observes that in the framework of the instant case, the State has not provided a consistent explanation of the way in which Peceros Pedraza and Meléndez Cueva were killed. Similarly, based on the evidence in the case file, it is reasonable to believe that Peceros Pedraza and Meléndez Cueva were neutralized by military agents, begged for their lives, and nonetheless were extrajudicially killed, receiving multiple bullet wounds to vital parts of their bodies that were intended to eliminate them. 161. In light of the foregoing, and of the evaluation of all of the evidence, the Commission considers that the Peruvian State is responsible for having extrajudicially executed Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez Cuevas, and it therefore concludes that the State violated Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument, to their detriment. 3. 168 The right to due process guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8(1) and 169 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument 162. The Commission recalls that it is a basic principle of law concerning the international liability of the State, established in International Human Rights Law, that every State is internationally liable for acts or omissions by any of its branches or agencies in violation of the internationally recognized 170 rights, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention establish the scope of the afore-mentioned principle in connection with the acts and omissions of the 171 domestic judicial authorities. 163. The Commission notes that while the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not results, that obligation […] must be assumed by the State as its own juridical duty and not as a simple formality condemned beforehand to be fruitless, or as a simple action of individual interests, which depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their next of kin, or on the private contribution of 172 evidentiary elements. 164. In the instant case, the petitioners contend that, although more than thirteen years have transpired since the events, the deaths of Edgar Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Víctor Salomón Peceros Pedraza and Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva, the State has failed to conduct an effective, impartial and serious investigation. In this regard, they asserted, inter alia, that Peru did not open an ex officio investigation into the events, applied the military jurisdiction, failed to preserve evidentiary material, did not provide access 168 Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 169 Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 170 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 172, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 140; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paras. 111 and 112; and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 108. 171 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 173, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 141; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 28; and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 109. 172 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 255; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 75; Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 131; and Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140,, para. 120.