38 human rights law is that every State is internationally responsible for the acts or omissions of any of its powers or organs that violate internationally protected rights, pursuant to Article 1(1) of the American Convention.109 In addition, Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention specify, in relation to the acts and omissions of the domestic judicial bodies, the scope of the above-mentioned principle on the generation of responsibility for the acts of any of the State’s organs.110 141. As a result of the general obligation to guarantee rights established in Article 1(1) of the Convention, the State assumes obligations to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized in the Convention to all persons subject to its competence.111 Since this obligation is related to specific rights, it can be complied with in different ways, depending on the rights that the State has the obligation to guarantee and the specific conditions of the case.112 142. The obligation to investigate human rights violations is one of the positive measures that the State must adopt to guarantee the rights recognized in the Convention. The Court has stated that, in order to comply with this obligation to guarantee rights, the States must not only prevent, but also investigate any violations of the human rights recognized in the Convention, such as those alleged in the instant case and also, if possible, endeavor to reestablish the violated right and, if appropriate, repair the damage produced by the human rights violations.113 143. It is worth noting that the obligation to investigate arises not only from provisions of the international legal conventions that are binding for the States Parties, but also from the domestic laws114 that refer to the obligation to investigate ex officio certain unlawful conducts and the provisions that allow the victims or their next of kin to denounce or file complaints, in order to participate procedurally in the criminal investigations undertaken to establish the truth about the facts. In this regard, it is relevant to indicate that Articles 1975 and 1977 of the Panamanian Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts established, respectively that “ [t]he procedure for criminal actions shall always be ex officio and the agents of the Attorney General’s Office shall be the investigating officials, except in those cases in which the law provides for another mechanism” and “[t]he exercise of the criminal action may be ex officio or by charges filed in accordance with the law.” 144. In light of this obligation, once the State authorities have been informed of the facts, they should commence a genuine, impartial, and effective investigation ex officio and promptly.115 The investigation must be conducted using all available legal means and 109 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, paras. 164, 169 and 170; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 24, para. 37, and Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 22, para. 60. 110 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.), supra note 81, para. 97; Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 22, para. 60, and Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 97. 111 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 6, para. 91; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 24, para. 77, and Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 22, para. 60. 112 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 13, para. 73, and Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 99. 113 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 15, paras. 166 and 176; Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 99, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 17, para. 88. 114 115 Cf. Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 104. Cf. Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 112; Case of García Prieto et al., supra note 10, para. 101, and Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 18, para. 130.