investigator of the proceeding initiated based on the execution of Mr. Gutiérrez “some days before he had to go and testify on [the latter’s] murder.” They also argued that the “judiciary consolidated the impunity” by “conducting an extremely deficient investigation, fraught with irregularities,” with “a deliberate lack of action.” 187 Based on all the above, the representatives argued that Argentina had violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez and his family members. 95. The State “accepted the conclusions of the Commission’s Merits Report […] with regard to the next of kin of [Assistant Commissioner] Gutiérrez […] owing to the alleged violation of the rights […] recognized in Articles […] 8 and 25 [of the American Convention,] in relation to Article 1(1) of this international instrument” because the judicial investigation into the murder of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez “was not conducted in accordance with the required international standards.” B. Considerations of the Court 96. In light of Argentina’s acknowledgement of the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection to the detriment of the next of kin of Assistant Commissioner Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, the Court will refer to lack of effectiveness of the investigations and proceedings conducted into the extrajudicial execution of the latter, taking into account the obligation of the State agents to act with due diligence and within a reasonable time, in accordance with Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 97. The Court has established that, under the American Convention, States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), 188 remedies that must be substantiated in keeping with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), 189 all within the general State obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of the right recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). 190 In addition, it has 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 discover the truth of what happened and to investigate, prosecute and punish, as appropriate, those found responsible. 191 187 Among other matters, the representatives indicated that: (a) important leads that emerged at the start of the investigation were not followed up on; (b) witnesses were not sought diligently; (c) there was a failure to investigate the other individual presumably responsible for the death of Mr. Gutiérrez; (d) adequate measures were never taken to protect the witnesses who were threatened; (e) progress in the investigation was the result of the efforts of the next of kin of Mr. Gutiérrez; (f) “different officials of the Police of the province of Buenos Aires who tried to make progress in the investigation and began to discover irregularities were suddenly assigned to new tasks that prevented them from continuing”; (g) “both police forces circulated false versions about the causes of the death” of Mr. Gutiérrez, and (h) the judge of the proceeding ordered the closing of the investigation and decided to archive it only a few months after initiating it and without having taken a decision on measures taken by the injured parties. 188 Cf. Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 90, and Case of the Massacres of Río Negro v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C. No. 250, para. 191. 189 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 92, and Case of Mohamed v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2012. Series C No. 255, para. 82. 190 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places supra, para. 242. 191 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places, supra, para. 242. 38