21 94. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that in the instant case, the State failed in its duty to prevent and its duty to ensure a search for María Isabel Véliz Franco, in violation of Article 4(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. B. Right to judicial guarantees and to effective judicial protection (articles 8(1) and 25) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 95. The obligation of the States to act with due diligence includes enabling access to suitable 107 and effective remedies when human rights are violated. The Inter-American Court has written that any person whose human rights have been violated has a right to obtain, from the competent organs of the State, a clarification of the events that violated his or her human rights and the corresponding responsibilities, established by means of the investigation and prosecution provided for in articles 8 and 108 25 of the Convention. The Inter-American Court has also observed that access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable period of time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to have everything 109 possible done to know the truth of what happened and the responsible parties punished. 96. Article 25 of the American Convention provides that: 1. 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. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 97. Article 8(1) of the American Convention reads as follows: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 98. Protection of these rights is reinforced by the general obligation to respect and ensure, undertaken in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. Here, the Inter-American Court has written that: Article 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention 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. As this Court has ruled, 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 in the terms of the Convention. […] That article is closely linked to Article 8(1), which provides that every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal for the determination of his rights, 110 whatever their nature. 107 IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser. L/V/II. doc.68, January 20, 2007. 108 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos, Judgment of March 14, 2001, Series C No. 75, paragraph 48. 109 See I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 382, citing Case of Vargas Areco; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, paragraph 289; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paragraph 171. 110 I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza Tamayo. Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, paragraph 169; I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1. paragraph 91; I/A Court H.R., Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, Continúa…