83 criminal investigation designed to shed light on the acts of torture and rape against Gladys Carol Espinoza,” and then it asserted that, the said rulings, ‘rejected’ the acts of torture and rape in criminal proceedings for the crime of terrorism that were unrelated to the investigation into the complaints presented by the petitioner.” Peru also affirmed that a gynecological appraisal was not made of Gladys Espinoza for the medical certificate of January 7, 2014, and that the conclusions on her sexual integrity in that certificate were the result of the evaluation of the previous medical examinations of Gladys Espinoza. In addition, the State indicated that the prosecutor was unable to denounce the facts that occurred in 1993 as torture, because he did not have the necessary legal instrument and, also, because Article 9 of the American Convention establishes the principle of legality. Thus, it indicated that the definition of torture as a crime was introduced into Peruvian criminal law on February 21, 1998, under Law No. 26,926 (article 321), which incorporated Title XIV-A on crimes against humanity into the Criminal Code. With regard to the assessment of the medical and psychological appraisals submitted to the judicial proceedings, the State indicated that “[t]he judges who compose the Judiciary are unable to make a specialized and technical assessment of a medical and psychological nature […] so that, in these cases, they have recourse to experts.” According to the State, “[i]t would be absurd to maintain that the National Terrorism Chamber should not trust the opinion of the experts,” who “were unable to affirm that the injuries were produced by torture” and who were obliged, under oath, to speak the truth. It added that “the Supreme Court […] acted based on an application for a declaration of nullity […] following the filing of an appeal, [so that] it could not issue a different opinion on the nature of the evidence, which in this case consists of the psychological and medical appraisals.” Regardless of the foregoing, the State indicated that, at the present time, the prosecutor is conducting an investigation, and the rulings of the Supreme Court and of the National Terrorism Chamber have not impeded this. B) Considerations of the Court 237. The Court has established that, pursuant to the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), 391 remedies that must be substantiated in keeping with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), 392 all as part of the general obligation of 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)). 393 It has also indicated that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the presumed victims or their family members that everything necessary is done to know the truth of what happened, and to investigate, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those eventually found responsible. 394 238. The Court has indicated in its consistent case law that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as an inherent legal duty and not simply as a formality, preordained to be fruitless, or merely as a measure taken by private individuals, 395 which depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or of their family 391 Cf. Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 199. 392 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 92, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 199. 393 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 199. 394 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 199. 395 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 200.