Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 145. The Court has indicated that under the American Convention: States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 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 (Art. 1). 130 146. The case-law of the inter-American system has established that while the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, it should be assumed by the state as a legal duty of its own, and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective 131, or as merely a step taken by of private interests that depends on the initiative of the victims or their family members, or as a private offer of evidence.132 147. The Court has determined that the investigations carried out by the state must be done with due diligence such that the investigations are carried out by the means available and are aimed at determining the truth.133 On this point the Inter-American Commission has stated: [T]he fact that no one has been convicted in the case or that, despite the efforts made, it was impossible to establish the facts does not constitute a failure to fulfill the obligation to investigate. However, in order to establish in a convincing and credible manner that this result was not the product of a mechanical implementation of certain procedural formalities without the State genuinely seeking the truth, the State must show that it carried out an immediate, exhaustive and impartial investigation.134 148. The Inter-American Court has established that a prolonged delay may itself constitute a violation of judicial guarantees135, thus it is up to the state to both state and prove the reason why it has required more time than would be reasonable to hand down a final judgment in a 130 I/A Court HR, see Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93. See also Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 145, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 183. 131 I/A Court HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; I/A Court HR, 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, para. 131; and I/A Court HR, Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 120. 132 I/A Court HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177; I/A Court HR, Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 120. 133 I/A Court HR, Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 101. 134 IACHR, 1997 Annual Report, Report No. 55/97, Case of 11,137 (Juan Carlos Abella et al.), Argentina, para. 412. On the same issue, see also IACHR, 1997 Annual Report, Report No. 52/97, Case of 11,218 (Arges Sequeira Mangas), Nicaragua, paras. 96 and 97. 135 I/A Court HR, Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 85; Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 160. 29