itself be attributed to the State in accordance with the consistent opinions of the agencies of the interAmerican system. 1. Right to a fair trial and to judicial protection (Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention) 130. Article 8.1 of the American Convention establishes: 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 Convention, in turn, reads: Everyone has the right to simple 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. According to the Court, the right to a fair trial means that any person whose human rights have been violated is entitled “to obtain clarification of the events that violated human rights and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent organs of the State, through [...] investigation and prosecution.”221 Regarding the right to judicial protection, the Court has ruled that it: (...) obliges the State to guarantee to every individual access to the administration of justice and, in particular, to simple and prompt recourse, so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained for the damages suffered (…). Article 25 is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society. 222 133. Thus, the State is obliged to ensure that “each state action that makes up the investigation process, as well as the investigation as a whole, must be oriented toward a specific purpose: the determination of the truth and the investigation, persecution, capture, trial, and, if possible, punishment of the persons responsible.”223 134. That obligation of investigating is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be undertaken by the State as its own legal obligation, and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.224 Hence, the existence of acts that obstruct justice, barriers, or failures to assist on the part of the authorities that have impeded or are impeding the resolution of the case constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial. 221 I/A Court H. R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru, Merits, Judgment of March 14, 2001, Series C No. 75, para. 48. 222 I/A Court H. R., Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 1998, Series C No. 42, para. 169; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 2, para. 90. 223 I/A Court H. R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, para. 101. 224 I/A Court H. R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4, para. 177; I/A Court H. R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 10, 2007, Series C No. 167, para. 131. 26