30 113. Ultimately, the Commission considers that the given blow to Mr. Quispealaya Vilcapoma by Sub Officer Juan Hilaquita Quispe was intended to impose him a punishment for committing repeatedly mistakes in his shooting practice, and to impose at the same time to all the soldiers who were present in the firing range of Azapampa an unrestricted submission to a misinterpreted military discipline. 114. The Commission observes that the State has the particular duty to protect the life and integrity of military recruits, since their freedom of movement and the application of disciplinary rules to which they could be submitted directly depend on State agents, who exercise authority and command over the recruits. Thus, when a recruit enlists in the Army in a good state of health but becomes injured during his service, it is the State’s duty to give a convincing explanation of the causes of these injuries, an element that has not occurred in the present case. 115. With respect to the obligation to guarantee the right contained in Article 5 of the American Convention, the Court has stated that this means that the State must investigate possible acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.108 116. The obligation to investigate is strengthened by the contents of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, according to which the State must “take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction,” as well as “prevent and punish . . . other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 117. Similarly, according to Article 8 of this Convention, 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 properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process. 118. The Inter-American Court has stated previously that: in the light of the general obligation to guarantee all persons under their jurisdiction the human rights enshrined in the Convention, established in Article 1(1) of the same, along with the right to humane treatment pursuant to Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of said treaty, there is a state obligation to start ex officio and immediately an effective investigations that allows it to identify, prosecute, and punish the responsible parties, when there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe than an act of 109 torture has been committed. 119. In summary, the duty to investigate constitutes an imperative State obligation that comes from international law and cannot be cast aside or conditioned on domestic normative acts or rules of any type. As the Court has already stated, in situations of serious violations of fundamental human rights, the absolute need to prevent the repetition of these acts depends in good measure on preventing impunity and satisfying the expectations of the victims and society as a whole to learn the 108 I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Bueno Alves V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 11 May 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 88; I/A Ct. H.R. Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Judgment of 26 September 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 78. 109 I/A Ct. H.R.. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 25 November 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 345; I/A Ct. H.R.. Case of Vargas Areco V. Paraguay. Judgment of 26 September 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 79, Case of Gutiérrez Soler. Judgment of 12 September 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 54.