90 international treaties for which the Court has jurisdiction.364 If this is the case, the determination of whether or not the actions of administrative or judicial organs constituted a violation of the State’s international obligations may result in the Court having to examine the respective domestic proceedings to establish whether they were compatible with the American Convention.365 290. The Court recalls that, regarding the facts of this case, three audits were conducted; the Ethics Tribunal of the La Paz Departmental Medical Association issued a ruling; an administrative proceeding was conducted before the Legal Advisory Services Unit of the La Paz Departmental Health Service and also criminal proceedings for the offense of injuries that ended with the extinction of the criminal action (supra paras. 72 to 113). Despite the different measures taken by the State as a result of I.V.’s complaints, no one has been declared responsible, in either the disciplinary, administrative or criminal processes, for the non-consensual sterilization to which I.V. was subjected, and she has not received civil reparation owing to the decision that extinguished the criminal action. 291. The Court notes that, based on this factual framework, the arguments concerning Articles 8(1) and 25(1) were centered on the criminal proceedings. In their main briefs, the Commission and the representative argued that the criminal proceedings filed owing to the complaints made by I.V. constituted a denial of justice pursuant to the American Convention, because they were not conducted with due diligence and because a series of irregularities existed that resulted in their culmination without a decision on the merits in application of the extinction of the criminal action, four years after the proceedings had been initiated. However, at a later stage, the State included arguments aimed at proving the effectiveness of the administrative proceeding conducted in this case. Accordingly, the Commission, in its final observations, also referred to the effectiveness of the administrative proceeding. Consequently, the Court finds it opportune, before examining the State’s actions in the context of the criminal proceedings in light of the arguments of the parties concerning the alleged violations of the Convention, to begin by including some brief general considerations on access to justice in cases of violation of sexual and reproductive rights. However, the Court will not rule on possible violations in the context of the administrative proceeding, because no specific arguments have been presented relating to a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in that sphere. B.1 Access to justice in cases of violation of sexual and reproductive rights 292. This Court has repeatedly indicated that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the presumed victims or their next of kin that everything necessary is done to know the truth of what happened, establish the respective responsibilities, and punish those responsible.366 To this end, and pursuant to the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be executed in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)),367 all of this within the general obligation of the States to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).368 364 Cf. Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, supra, para. 18, and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 19. Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 222, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 173. 365 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 161. 366 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 91, and Case of Herrera Espinoza et al. v. Ecuador, supra, paras. 174 and 175. 367 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, supra, para. 91, and Case of Chinchilla Sandoval v. Guatemala, supra, para. 233. 368