120. The right to a fair trial implies that anyone who has suffered a violation of their human rights “has a right to obtain clarification of the events that violated human rights and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent organs of the State, through the investigation and prosecution that are established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.”188 Regarding the right to judicial protection, the Court has written that: [it] obliges the State to guarantee to every individual access to the administration of justice and, in particular, to simple and prompt recourse, so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained for the damages suffered. ... Article 25 “is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society.”189 121. As a preliminary matter, the Commission recalls the consistent case law of the organs of the inter-American system regarding their possibility of reviewing domestic proceedings. In the words of the Inter-American Court: The investigation by [the] judicial authorities of a State’s alleged violation of international obligations may face the [Commission and the] Court with the need to examine the related domestic proceedings. Based on the above, domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole and the duty of the international tribunal is to find out if all proceedings were carried out in compliance with international provisions.190 122. In addition, as the Court has held: States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law [Article 8(1)], all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction [Article 1(1)].191 123. Thus, the State has the obligation 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 events.”192 The Commission remarks that the right to the truth is subsumed in the right of the victim or his or her next of kin to obtain from the competent organs of the State a clarification of the violations and the corresponding responsibilities, through the investigation and prosecution provided for in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.193 188 241. IACH, Case 12.251, Merits No. 85/13, Admisibility and Merits, Vereda La Esperanza, Colombia, November 4, 2013, para. 189 I/A Court H.R. Loayza Tamayo Case. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, par. 169; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, par. 90. 190 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, par. 142; Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, par. 133; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, par. 200; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, par. 120. 191 I/A Court H.R. Godínez Cruz Case v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, par. 93; and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, par. 183. 192 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, par. 101. 193 IACHR. The Right to Truth in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.152, August 13, 2014, para. 73. See: I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par. 78; Case of AlmonacidArellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 150; and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, par. 147. 27