privacy, 127 the child, 128 equal protection, 129 fair trial, 130 and judicial protection, 131 in conjunction with Article 1(1)132 of the American Convention, and articles 7(b) and 7(f)133 of the Convention of Belém do Pará 20. As the Court has found consistently, the Convention places on States Parties the obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25), which should be in accordance with the rules of legal due process (Article 8(1)), pursuant to States’ general obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of rights recognized by the Convention for all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).134 21. Likewise, the right to access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time period, the right of the alleged victims or their relatives to know the truth about what happened and punish those eventually found responsible.135 The caselaw has been clear in indicating that, under the duty to investigate, “Once they become aware of acts of violence against women, State authorities should initiate, ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation using all available legal means, aimed at determining the truth.” 136 Although the State’s obligation is one of means and not ends, this does not mean that it can be discharged as a simple formality doomed from the start to failure or as a mere processing of private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of victims or their relatives or the submission of evidentiary elements by private parties.137 Also, the duty to investigate remains, “whosoever the agent who may eventually be attributed with the violation, even private individuals, because, if their acts are not investigated seriously, they would, to a certain extent, be aided by the public authorities, which would involve the international responsibility of the State.”138 127Article 11(2) of the American Convention establishes as follows: “No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.” 128 Article 19 of the American Convention establishes, in its pertinent part, as follows: “Every minor child has the right to the measures of protection required by his condition as a minor on the part of his family, society, and the state.” 129 Article 24 of the American Convention establishes, in its pertinent part, as follows: “All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.” 130 Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes, in its pertinent part, 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.” 131 Article 25(1) of the American Convention establishes, in its pertinent part, as follows: “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.” 132 Article 1(1) of the American Convention establishes, in its pertinent part, as follows: “The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 133 Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará establishes, in its pertinent part, as follows: “The States Parties condemn all forms of violence against women and agree to pursue, by all appropriate means and without delay, policies to prevent, punish and eradicate such violence and undertake to: [...] b. apply due diligence to prevent, investigate and impose penalties for violence against women; [...] f. establish fair and effective legal procedures for women who have been subjected to violence which include, among others, protective measures, a timely hearing and effective access to such procedures. 134 Inter-American Court. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections Judgment June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91 135 Inter-American Court. Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 105; Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114. 136 Inter-American Court. Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 101. 137 Inter-American Court. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350 (Judgment of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al.), para. 151; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 101;, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4 (Merits, Velásquez Rodríguez), para. 177; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 144; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 100. 138 Inter-American Court. Merits, Velásquez Rodríguez), para. 177. 16