26 the duty to fulfill all the obligations arising out of the Convention, even if the Court has no jurisdiction to rule on the alleged violations of said instrument.36 Mention should be made that the purpose and goal of the Convention is to protect human beings; therefore, it requires that the right to life be interpreted and enforced so that its guarantees are truly practical and effective (effet utile).37 86. Similarly, the Court has previously analyzed the obligations set forth in Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture in relation to the events occurred prior to the time the treaty became effective for the State, and has ruled that “the obligations undertaken under said treaty must be fulfilled by the State”38 once the aforementioned Convention against Torture becomes effective. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the State has the duty to investigate and punish the alleged torture of Gerardo Vargas-Areco in the domestic jurisdiction, pursuant to Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture. Said obligation is binding since March 9, 1990, notwithstanding any source of obligations other than the aforementioned Convention against Torture. Since March 26, 1993, the Court has jurisdiction to rule on the non-fulfillment of the obligation set forth in the Convention against Torture. 87. In the instant case, the Court finds that the extra-judicial execution of Gerardo Vargas-Areco and his alleged torture were not effectively and fully investigated. For instance, the authorities who carried out the investigation after 1993, should have analyzed the inconsistencies between the reports of the military physician who participated at the initial stage and of Dr. Ribamar Da Silva, and should have ordered that an autopsy be performed by a third expert, carefully taking into account its results. Instead, said authorities only asked different physicians to analyze photographs of the mortal remains of Gerardo Vargas-Areco in order to establish “if the wounds present in the body can be associated with acts of torture […].” To that effect, on May 6, 2002; September 22, 2003; October 3, 2003; October 26, 2003; and July 5, 2004, the physicians Mario J. Vázquez-Estigarribia, Octaviano Aquiles Franco-Saggia, Fausto Ricardo Paredes-Pavón, Elida SalinasRamírez and José G. Bellassai-Zayas, respectively, issued expert reports regarding the photographs of the dead body of Gerardo Vargas-Areco (supra para. 71(18) to 71(20)). 88. As indicated in the expert witness report of Dr. Ravioli, the certificate of removal of the body and the medical reports drafted during criminal investigations do not satisfy the formalities of an autopsy, which constitutes the adequate technical means to establish the cause of death (supra para. 69.B.3). 89. In its expert witness report, Dr. Ravioli indicated that, “the examination of the photographs enclosed allows us to confirm or reject the presence of acts of torture,” and added that the “surveys performed were fully insufficient to investigate a violent death. [Furthermore, the] surveys performed do not provide relevant information to 36 Cf. Case of Moiwana Community, supra note 7, para. 43. 37 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 4, para. 64; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 129; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 83. In the same regard, cf. Eur.C.H.R., McCann and Others v. the United Kingdom, Judgment of September 27, 1995, Series A No. 324, paras. 146-147. 38 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 158; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 29, para. 54; and Case of Tibi, supra note 29, para. 159.