who was under the care of agents of the State – does not have mechanisms to prove the alleged acts of violence against him. 216. Notwithstanding, from the findings of fact and of law in the instant report, the Commission has established that on diverse occasions and to multiple authorities, the parents have denounced the existence of torture and the failure to clarify the circumstances surrounding his death, as well as the irregularities committed from the time he was transferred from the headquarters of the Rural Commandos of Caño Negro to El Piñal Hospital. The specific issues of the State’s lack of due diligence have already been examined in connection with the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention; but on this point of the examination, it is relevant to reiterate that the jurisprudence of the Inter-American System has established that once the authorities have knowledge of a human rights violation, especially the right to personal integrity, they should initiate a serious, impartial, and effective investigation of the events ex officio and without delay.282 217. Moreover, concerning the allegation of torture, which is strictly prohibited by International Human Rights Law, the Commission maintains that any violation of the prohibition of torture and other abuse imposes State responsibility under international law and requires the State to investigate the events. When a complaint is lodged that someone has been seriously mistreated by the police or other agents of the State in violation of the express prohibition contained in Article 5(2) of the American Convention, that provision, read in connection with the State’s duty to “respect” and “guarantee” to all persons under its jurisdiction the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention, requires that an effective official investigation be conducted. That investigation must be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of the parties responsible. In the instant case, the State did not furnish information about the investigations in this regard nor rebut the medical reports indicating irregularities and inconsistencies. 218. Concerning that investigation, the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture establishes that the States are obligated to adopt effective measures to “punish torture” (Articles 1 and 6) and that when there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction “the States Parties shall guarantee that their authorities will properly and immediately conduct an investigation into the case […]”. 219. In the instant case, the parents of Johan Alexis Ortiz stated in the civil court proceeding that their son had been tortured prior to his death (supra par. 124). However, according to the case file, it does not appear that any State authority launched a serious and diligent investigation into this complaint. The Commission therefore concludes that the omission of the Venezuelan State to investigate the possible commission of an act of torture constitutes a violation of the rights to the judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of that same instrument, to the detriment of the parents of Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernández. 220. Furthermore, bearing in mind that the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture entered into force in Venezuela on August 26, 1991, the Commission notes that according to the jurisprudence of the Court since that date, “the State is demandable regarding compliance with the obligations set forth in that treaty.”283 The Commission therefore considers that the failure to investigate in this case also constituted a violation of the obligations set forth in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture from the time that instrument entered into force. On the lack of timely and appropriate medical care 282 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, Par. 101; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, Par. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, Par. 130. 283 I/A Court of H.R., Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, Par. 159.