B. Right to fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8.1119, 25.1120) in relation to Article 1.1 of the American Convention 1. Due diligence standards in investigations of deaths that involve the participation of State agents and reasonable time 79. The IACHR as well as the Court have established that in cases related to extrajudicial executions, the State has the duty to initiate ex oficio and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation.121 Following this line of case law, when related to suspicious deaths that involve State agents, “[the] investigation shall be carried out by means of all the judicial resources available for the determination of the truth and the investigation, trial and penalty of all the perpetrators of the events, especially when it may imply the participation of state agents.”122 Therefore, the duty to investigate shall be accomplished with seriousness and not just as a formality condemned beforehand to being infructuous and shall have a sense and be assumed by the States as their own legal duty and not as a simple management of interests. 123 Moreover, the Commission reiterates that the obligation to investigate and punish every act that entails a violation of the rights protected by the Convention requires that not only the direct perpetrators of human rights violations be punished, but also the masterminds.124 80. Case-law has also established that in cases where there are contradictory versions that involve the privation of the right to life, besides carrying out certain evidentiary proceedings, “the due diligence in the investigation shall be assessed in relation to the need to determine the truthfulness of the versions considered in the context of the procedure regarding the events, that is to say, if it was possible to obtain a legal clarification of the events and a possible legal assessment thereof according to what happened.” 125 81. In the same way, with the objective of guaranteeing the due diligence in the performance of an exhaustive and impartial investigation of a death in suspicious circumstances that involves state agents, the Commission highlights some standards from the Minnesota Protocol, an instrument that establishes some minimum diligences such as: the identification of the victim, the recollection and preservation of evidence related to the death with the aim of helping in the potential prosecution of the perpetrators, the identification of possible witnesses and the obtention of their statements in relation to the death, the determination of the cause, manner, place and time of the death, as well as any other pattern or practice that may have provoked the death, the distinction between natural death, suicide and homicide, the identification and arrest of the person or persons involved in the death and the appearance of the alleged perpetrators before a competent court established by law.126 Pursuant to such standards “When necessary, and subject to the consent of the individual(s) concerned, investigators should take steps to protect an interviewee and others from illtreatment or intimidation as a consequence of providing information.” 127 119 Article 8 from the American Convention establishes: 1. Every person has the right to be heard, with the respective guarantees and within reasonable time, by an independent and unbiased competent judge or court, previously designated by law, in connection to any formal criminal accusation filed against him or her, or in order to determine his civil, labor and prosecution rights and obligations or any other rights and obligations. 120 Article 25 from the American Convention establishes that: 1. Every person has the right to a simple and rapid action or any other effective action before the competent judges or courts, which protects him or her from acts that violate the fundamental rights set forth by the Constitution, the law or this Convention, even if such violation was committed by persons performing their official functions. 121 IACHR, Report No. 41/15, Cases 12,335, 12. 336, 12. 757, 12.711. Merits. Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán and others. Colombia. July 28, 2015, para. 195; and I/A Court of H.R. Case of Pueblo Bello’s Massacre Vs. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 219. 122 I/A Court. H.R. Case Mendoza and others vs. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 14, 2013. Series C No. 260. Para. 218. See also: Cfr. Case Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Merits, paras. 177, and Case Santo Domingo Massacre Vs. Colombia, para. 157. 123 I/A Court. H.R. Case Velásquez Rodríguez Vs. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 6, para. 177. 124 IACHR. Report on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders in the Americas OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124. Doc. 5 rev.1, March 7, 2006, para. 109., Also: I/A Court of H.R, Case of the Constitutional Court Vs. Peru, judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 71, para. 123; I/A Court. H.R, Casa Blake Vs. Guatemala, Reparations, Judgment of January 22, 1999, Series C No. 48, para. 65. 125 I/A Court. H.R. Case García Ibarra and others vs. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 17, 2015. Series S No. 306, para. 143. 126 I/A Court. H.R. Case Ortiz Hernández and others vs. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2017. Series C No. 338. Para. 161. 127 UN. The Minnesota Protocol on the Investigation of Potentially Unlawful Death (2016), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, New York/Geneva, 2017. Para. 86. 17