171. In addition, they argued that the definition of torture in the Peruvian Criminal Code does not comply “with international standards” and that this was “not only a violation of Peru’s international obligations, but also a violation of the rights to a remedy and to reparation of every victim of torture.” They added that “the lack of due diligence in the investigation […] and the discriminatory and offensive treatment to which she was subjected by different members of the system of justice owing to her sexual orientation, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” Furthermore, owing to the “inadequacy of the criminal definition [of torture], this was not investigated in this case.” In particular, they emphasized that the definition of torture “does not include the circumstance that the act is committed in order to discriminate against the victim.” 172. The State considered that, “during the criminal proceedings, Azul Rojas Marín […] was heard with the due guarantees and within a reasonable time by a competent and independent court, previously established by law” and had access to “simple, prompt and effective remedies.” It indicated that it was false that Azul Rojas Marín had gone to the Casa Grande Police Station to file a criminal complaint on February 25 and 26, 2008. It underlined that “there is no reason to conclude that the rules established by the Convention and the case law of the Inter-American Court make it necessary to invalidate all the evidence obtained by the police in certain circumstances.” The State also provided information on the second investigation of the facts that the Second Supraprovincial Prosecutor ordered on November 20, 2018. B. Considerations of the Court 173. The Court has established that, pursuant to the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), and these remedies must be substantiated in keeping with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all of this within the general obligation of the States to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).216 It has also indicated that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the presumed victims or their family members that everything necessary is done to discover the truth about what happened and to investigate, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those found responsible. 217 174. The Court has also indicated that Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture clearly establishes that, “if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed, ex officio, and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal proceedings.”218 175. Taking into account the arguments of the parties and of the Commission, the Court will proceed to examine: (1) the obligation to receive the complaint; (2) the due diligence in the investigation; (3) the failure to investigate torture, and (4) the dismissal decision. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 91, and Case of Gómez Virula et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 393, para. 64. 216 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of Gómez Virula et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 86. 217 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 54, and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 151. 218 46