34 access to the courts; and that the domestic law recognizes the right of the affected party to formulate an accusation in a criminal trial “in normal circumstances”, but in this case the facts occurred during a state of emergency in which military law was to be applied, restricting the possibility for the victims or their family members to make any formal criminal complaint. Moreover, they alleged that the domestic law does not establish that the sole invocation of selfdefence constitutes an automatic ground for exemption of the obligation to investigate and to assess the responsibility of the agents; and that “both military and police authorities, as well as the Government and the Judiciary, refused to or were unable to investigate [the facts] and punish [the persons responsible] and to assist the individuals who wanted to ascertain the truth about the events, since members of the Congress, human rights organisms, family members of the victims and neighbors requested an impartial investigation at the judicial level[, …] petitions to which the Government did not pay attention, agreeing with the partial version of the Armed Forces whom were active actors of the reported violations”. They claim that both the family members of the alleged victims and the society have a right to know the truth about the events. 114. The Court has held that, in relation with the general obligation of the States to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention (Article 1(1)), State Parties have, under the American Convention, the obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violation (Article 25) and that these remedies must be provided in accordance with the principles of due process (Article 8(1))97. 115. This Court has stated that the right to access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their family members that everything necessary to know the truth about the events or to punish the possible responsible persons be done98. 116. By acknowledging the violation of these provisions, the State certainly admitted that “the state of emergency was not entirely legitimate due to the lack of judicial investigation”, and that “since 1993 no criminal proceedings have been initiated regarding the death of the alleged victims”. 117. The Court points out that the facts of this case occurred in March 1993 and that, as admitted by the State, no criminal proceedings have been initiated in ordinary jurisdiction to investigate these facts, to identify the perpetrators and, if the case may be, to punish them. Furthermore, in spite of reiterated requests to the State to submit to the Court copies of any judicial or administrative investigation or of any other proceedings initiated in the domestic jurisdiction in relation to the facts of the instant case (supra para. 7 and 33), the State did not do so. Neither is there any evidence indicating that some proceeding is actually pending before military or ordinary courts. 118. In spite of the foregoing, the State mentioned that “no petition or particular accusation has been submitted by the injured individuals or their family members”. During the public hearing, the State insisted that the facts have not been proven within a domestic criminal proceeding, which should be – according to the State - the appropriate forum to determine the circumstances of the deprivation of the life of the victims. Moreover, in its final arguments, the State expressed that “although the judicial guarantees and the judicial protection established by the American Convention regarding the proceedings of the accused take effect once a lawsuit has been opened[;] and although in this case judicial proceedings have not even been initiated, […] so that a violation Cf. Case of Godínez-Cruz, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 93. See also Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 145, and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 381. 97 Cf. Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 146, and Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 382. 98