especially when it faces an event that has cost a person’s life.102 The lack of diligence in the investigation reported by the petitioners was not refuted by the Ecuadorian State in its observations. The IACHR thus maintains that, in this case, the State did not proceed with a diligent investigation of the events that occurred in order to identify the body of Mr. Palma and determine the reasons for his death. 120. In this respect, as general international law establishes, States are internationally liable for the actions or omissions of their authorities and bodies that are in violation of the obligations assumed in the treaties. In this sense, the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protections established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention103 and the obligation to guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention according to its Article 1(1)104 are especially relevant vis-à-vis the actions and omissions of the bodies linked to the administration of justice. 121. The right to a fair trial established in Article 8 of the American Convention encompasses a set of requirements that must be observed in legal institutions so that people have the conditions to adequately defend their own rights in the face of any action by the State.105 For its part, the right to judicial protection contained in Article 25 of the American Convention requires the existence of adequate and effective remedy that makes it possible to safeguard fundamental rights.106 A remedy will be considered adequate if it is constituted as an effective and sufficient means to reach the result desired by the one seeking the recourse107 and, effective in the sense that it is capable of producing the result for which it was conceived.108 122. The Inter-American Court has maintained that, according to the American Convention, the States Party must provide effective judicial recourse to the victims of human rights violations. Now, this must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of legal due process, all within the general obligation, under the responsibility of the States themselves, to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention for all people under its jurisdiction.109 102 Inter-American Court. Case of Myrna Mack Chang Vs. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Ser. C. No. 101, para. 167; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez Vs. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merit, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Ser. C. No. 99, para. 127. 103 Inter-American Court. Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Ser. C. No. 149, para. 173, Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Ser. C. No. 147, para. 141; Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Ser. C. No. 141, para. 28; and Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Ser. C., No. 107, para. 109. 104 Inter-American Court. Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Ser. C. No. 149, para. 172; Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Ser. C. No. 147, para. 140; Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Ser. C. No. 140, para. 111 and 112; and Case of Massacre of Mapiripán. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Ser. C. No. 134, para. 108. 105 Inter-American Court. Case of Genie Lacayo Vs. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Ser. C. No. 30, para. 74; Case of Claude Reyes et. al. Vs. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Ser. C. No. 151. para. 116; and Inter-American Court., Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25, and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Consultative Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Ser. A., No. 9, para. 27. 106 Inter-American Court. Case of Durand and Ugarte Vs. Perú. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Ser. C. No. 68, para. 101. 107 Inter-American Court. Case of Godínez Cruz Vs. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Ser. C. No. 3, para. 67. 108 Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Ser. C. No. 4, para. 66; Case of The Mayagna Community (Sumo) Awas Tingni Vs. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Ser. C. No. 79, para. 135; and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et.al.) Vs. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Ser. C., No. 158. para. 130. 109 Inter-American Court. Case of Bayarri Vs. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Ser. C. No. 187, para. 103; and Case of Kawas Fernández Vs. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009, Ser. C. No. 196, para. 110.