231. The State described as false the Commission’s assertion that, other than the motions mentioned, Mrs. Chinchilla did not have access to any other formal remedy to denounce the harm caused to her health. It indicated that, based on the claims made by the alleged victim, the most appropriate and effective remedy would have been to file a habeas corpus action, pursuant to Article 82 of Guatemala’s Law of Amparo, Personal Exhibition and Constitutionality. However, there is no record that Mrs. Chinchilla or her family members used that mechanism. In that sense, the State stressed that the failure on the part of the alleged victim and her next of kin to make proper use of available domestic remedies while she was alive is noteworthy, even though these remedies were at their disposal, yet they insisted at all times on filing incidental motions for early release, incorrectly employing domestic remedies. 232. Regarding the investigation into Mrs. Chinchilla’s death, the State reiterated that at no time was there any mention of criminal responsibility or liability on the part of any authority at the COF regarding her death. The outcome of the investigation process established that her death did not constitute a crime, since the order for the removal of the body was signed by an agent of the Public Prosecution Service, with assistance from the medical examiner, and the record showed that Mrs. Chinchilla’s body had no indicia or signs of violence. Moreover, laboratory tests were ordered to rule out the possible presence of drugs of abuse in her blood, as well as the tests carried out on the samples of blood, liver and gastric contents taken from the body in order to detect or rule out the presence of substances and drugs, etc. Thus, the State affirmed that, in its initial actions after her death, the Public Prosecution Service had investigated the matter with due diligence. It argued that the effectiveness of an investigation is not measured by its outcome. With regard to the fact that Mrs. Chinchilla’s family and representatives were dissatisfied with the decisions taken at the domestic level, it noted that the investigation file shows that at no time did they file a complaint or request the support of the Public Prosecution Service, as established in Article 539 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; nor did they file an appeal (motion of inconformity) under Article 116 thereof. The State argued that in this case it is impossible to violate a right that was not exercised, and that a remedy was always available to Mrs. Chinchilla’s next of kin. B. Considerations of the Court 233. The Court has indicated that, pursuant to Article 8(1) of the American Convention,328 victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin, must have ample opportunities to be heard and to act in the respective proceedings, both to clarify the facts and to punish those responsible, and to seek appropriate reparation. Likewise, the Court has considered that States have the obligation to provide effective judicial remedies for persons claiming to be victims of human rights violations (Article 25). 329 These remedies must be substantiated pursuant to the rules of due legal process (Article 8(1)), all within the general Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that: “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.” 328 Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes that: “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.” 329 73