30 Rio Miel] up to the present date, problems have been arising that not only involve the land dispute, but that also jeopardizes the safety and some of the property of the inhabitants of the communities.” 122. Additionally, according to the facts deemed proven, members of the Punta Piedra Community reported these acts to the state authorities on multiple occassions, as shown in the report filed in connection with the murder of Félix Ordóñez Suazo, a member of the Community, in June 2007; the report for unlawful occupation filed by the leaders of the Community on April 13, 2010; and the one presented on the same date for death threats against a member of the Community by no garifunas who had invaded community lands. The State indicated in the proceedings before the IACHR, in relation to the report for the death of Félix Ordóñez, that the investigation was pending at the General Directorate of Criminal Investigation, and the Special Prosecutor for Ethnicities and Patrimony; and, in connection with the April 2010 reports, it informed that a visit to the lands was programmed, which “could not be carried out … for lack of travel expenses and transportation for the people assigned to carry out those activities.” 123. In this regard, the IACHR recalls that the Inter-American Court has interpreted Article 25 as guaranteeing a simple and prompt recourse for the protection of rights, but also an effective recourse 126 for protecting individuals from acts of the State that violate their fundamental rights. For that reason, the right to judicial protection is considered to be an extremely important right since it becomes a fundamental mechanism for exercising the defense of any other right that has been violated by bringing appropriate actions or remedies before the competent judicial authority. 124. Consequently, the States’ Parties have the obligation to take all kinds of measures to ensure that nobody is deprived of judicial protection and from exercising his or her right to a simple and 127 effective recourse. According to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, the State has the obligation to ensure that “each State act that composes the investigation proceeding, and the entire investigation in itself, should be oriented at a specific purpose: the determination of the truth and the investigation, finding, arrest, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the 128 events.” As the Court has repeatedly pointed out, it is an obligation with respect to means, and not outcomes, that the State should adopt as a juridical obligation of its own and not as a simple formality 129 destined to fail from the start. In that sense, the investigation must be carried out with due diligence, 130 and in an effective, serious, and impartial manner. 125. Pursuant to the foregoing, the IACHR notes that, during the years relevant for this case, numerous reports were filed with state agencies, which tell of a multiplicity of acts of violence encompassed in the situation of lack of protection of the ancestral territory of the Punta Piedra Garifuna Community. However, based on the evidence of reports contained in the file of the IACHR, in none of the cases did the State notify regarding the undertaking of a serious and effective investigation, without delays and directed at uncovering the truth and assigning liabilities. The IACHR considers, based on the information at its disposal, that the lack of a State response to the attempted remedies, left the victims in a situation of lack of protection and has resulted in the Community of Punta Piedra and its members 126 I/A Court H.R., Tibi v. Ecuador Case. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114. paragraph 130; “Five Pensioners” Case. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paragraph 126. 127 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paragraph 43. 128 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3 rd, 2009. Series C No. 196, paragraph 101. 129 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paragraph 131; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, paragraph 120. 130 I/A Court H.R. Case of García Prieto et al v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, paragraph 101; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, paragraph 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paragraph 130.