(Articles 8.1 200, 5, 11, 13, and 25.1 201 of the American Convention, Articles 1, 6, and 8 202 of the IACPPT, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará) 1. General considerations on the obligation to investigate, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish the perpetrators 105. As the Inter-American Court has pointed out consistently in its case law, the State's obligation to investigate cases of human rights violations stems from the general obligation to guarantee the rights established in Articles 1(1), 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in addition to the substantive right that must be protected or ensured. 203 In keeping with this obligation, the authorities must investigate any conduct that affects the enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the Convention. In particular, the Court has held that in cases of violent death, “the performance of an ex officio, prompt, serious, impartial and effective investigation constitutes a fundamental element essential for the protection of the rights affected in these situations.” 204 106. The Court has established that, under Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, States are obligated to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations. 205 Such remedies must be adjudicated in accordance with the rules of due process. 206 The Court has also stated that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, that the alleged victims or their next of kin are entitled to have all necessary steps taken to ascertain the truth about what happened and to investigate, prosecute, and, if appropriate, punish the perpetrators. 207 107. Both the Commission and the Court have affirmed in their jurisprudence that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means rather than results, which must be assumed by the State as an inherent legal obligation and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a measure taken by private interests that depends on the procedural initiative of the victims or their families or on the private production 200 Article 8.1 of the American Convention establishes that: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature”. 201 Article 25.1 of the American Convention establishes that: “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties”. 202 Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture establish that: “Article 1. The State Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention”. “Article 6. […] The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature. The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction”. “Article 8. The States Parties shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case. Likewise, if 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 respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process. After all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State”. 203 I/A Court H.R. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C, No. 134. Para. 219; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C, No. 124. Para. 147; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C, No. 120. Para. 63. 204 I/A Court H.R. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C, No. 134. Para. 75. 205 I/A Court H.R. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C, No. 283, para. 199. 206 I/A Court H.R. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C, No. 289, para. 237. 207 I/A Court H.R. Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C, No. 283, para. 199. 27