80. Concerning the compensatory action, it noted that the period of approximately three and a half years between when the action was brought and when the judgment was issued is reasonable and in keeping with the parameters of inter-American case law. Regarding the appeals stage, it stated that there have been no irregularities, acts, or omissions that unduly delayed the proceedings. 81. With respect to the alleged violation of the right to the truth, the State argued that it did not hinder in any way the criminal investigation of the events or the efforts of family members to seek reparation. It declared that at no point during the trial before the Commission or in its answering brief did it present an alternative or fictitious account of the events in an effort to conceal anything, and that it had no intention of concealing the historical truth or silencing the voices of the alleged victims. Lastly, it maintained that the domestic legal proceedings were legitimate even though their results did not meet the expectations of the alleged victims. B. Considerations of the Court 82. The Court has established that, pursuant to the American Convention, States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in keeping with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all of this under the general obligation of those States to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention for all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). 140 83. The Court has noted that there is access to justice when the State ensures, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their families to have all necessary measures taken to learn the truth about what happened and, as appropriate, for those responsible to be punished. 141 Related to this, the Court recalls that Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention also establish the right to obtain a response to the claims and requests filed before the judicial authorities, because the effectiveness of the remedy involves a positive obligation to provide a response within a reasonable time. 142 84. Furthermore, the Court has maintained consistently in its case law that in cases of the deprivation of life, it is essential that the State identify, investigate effectively, and eventually punish those responsible. Otherwise, it would be creating the conditions for such acts to be repeated in a climate of impunity. 143 85. Moreover, the Court has consistently noted that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a mere formality doomed to be ineffective. 144 Further, the investigation must be serious, objective, and effective, and be aimed at determining the truth and seeking the prosecution, capture, and eventual trial and punishment of the perpetrators of the crimes. 145 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 91, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 98. 140 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their families v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 217. 141 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 57, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their families v. Brazil. 218. 142 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 99. 143 144 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 15, 2021. Series C No. 444, para. 139. 145 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, para. 128. 25