Pimentel Barrios, embodied in Article 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 2. Protection of the family 169. In the instant case, the Commission did not argue the alleged violation of the right to protection of the family. This argument was put forward only by the representatives. This Court reiterates that the alleged victims, their next of kin or their representatives may invoke rights other than those included in the Commission’s Report on Merits, based on the facts described by the Commission (supra para. 33). 170. The representatives asked the Court to declare that the right to protection of the family had been violated “to the detriment of the Barrios family, whose members have been identified.” They argued that, in this case, “the whole family had been directly affected owing to the constant threats and persecution suffered by its members, the displacement of which they were victims, the disruption of their community, the fragmentation of the households and the loss, for many of its members, of the essential figure of the father, owing to the executions that were perpetrated.” 171. The Court considers that these arguments refer to alleged effects that, in substance, will be examined in different chapters of this judgment; consequently it does not find it necessary to make an additional ruling in this regard. X RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS 172. First, the Court will include some general considerations regarding the right to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection. It will also summarize the arguments of the parties concerning the alleged violations of these rights. It will then analyze the domestic proceedings initiated in relation to each incident suffered by the victims. Lastly, the Court will refer to the alleged violation of the right to the truth argued by the representatives. A. General considerations of the Court 173. In previous cases, the Court has recognized the necessary relationship that exists between the general obligation to guarantee rights indicated in Article 1(1) of the Convention and the specific rights protected by this instrument. This obligation of guarantee gives rise to State obligations to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention to every person subject to its jurisdiction. Since this obligation of guarantee is related to specific rights, it may be complied with in different ways, depending on the right that the State has the obligation to guarantee and the specific circumstances of the case.220 174. The obligation to investigate human rights violations is among the positive measures that States must adopt to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. The Court has held that, in order to comply with the obligation of guarantee, the States must not merely prevent, but also investigate violations of the human rights recognized in this instrument, 220 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, paras. 162 and 166, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 111. 57