“The trial court adequately argued and justified the contested judgment, concatenating the act described in the indictment with the evidence provided, to reach the conclusion with legal certainty that the appellant is the author of the crime of abduction or kidnapping, based on the corresponding actions he carried out in the execution of the crime, and the causal nexus has been fully established.”206 166. This Court notes that the response provided by the Appellate Court was limited to rejecting the appellant’s allegations without conducting any type of review of factual and/or evidentiary matters or examining the specific and individualized grounds argued by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes in his remedy of appeal. Indeed, on the one hand, the Appellate Court argued the inviolability of the evidence established in article 430 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in order not to examine any of the arguments put forward by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes regarding the discrepancy between the indictment and the proven facts. In addition, and with regard to the numerous issues that Mr. Ruiz Fuentes described in his remedy of appeal in relation to the assessment of evidence made by the judge a quo, the Appellate Court merely gave an abstract and imprecise response, without specifically analyzing any of the reasons given by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes. Consequently, the Court considers that the refusal of the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court to review the issues raised by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes’ defense counsel constituted, in this case, an internationally wrongful act because it resulted in a failure of the obligation to make a comprehensive review of the judgment established in Article 8(2)(h). 167. On the other hand, given that Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention has its own legal content and the principle of effectiveness (effet utile) crosscuts the satisfactory protection of all the rights recognized in this instrument, the Court finds it unnecessary to examine that provision in relation to Article 25 of the Convention.207 Also, regarding the Commission’s allegation that none of the other remedies filed by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes were effective, the Court notes that the Commission failed to provide any specific arguments or evidence. Consequently, the Court has no elements that could constitute the alleged violation. 168. Based on the above considerations, the Court concludes that the State violated the right to appeal the judgment established in Article 8(2)(h) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Hugo Humberto Ruiz Fuentes. b.3 Investigation of the torture suffered by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes 169. In this case, the Commission and the representatives argued that the State had not opened any investigation into the torture suffered by Mr. Ruiz Fuentes at the time of his arrest on August 6, 1997, in violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) of this instrument and in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT. 170. The Court recalls that, in light of the general obligation of States Parties to respect and ensure the rights of every person subject to their jurisdiction contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the duty to initiate, ex officio, and immediately, an effective investigation that permits the identification, prosecution and punishment of those responsible when an accusation has been made or there is a justified reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention.208 In the instant case, the Court considers that the State of Guatemala did not act in accordance with these provisions. Cf. Judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber of the Appellate Court of Guatemala on September 13, 1999 (evidence file, folio 115). 207 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 77, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 123. 208 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 159. 206 40