44 “from November 2000, the conditions of Institutional freedom and autonomy were granted so that the General Attorney’s Office and the Judiciary and any competent authorities could serve in their positions free from any kind of interference whatsoever by any individual or political body;” therefore, after that date the State claimed that no violation of the aforementioned Article and of Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention had been committed in the instant case (supra para. 40). 139. Based on the above, this Court considers that the State’s due diligence in conducting the proceedings initiated locally after November 2000, should be analyzed in order to establish whether such proceedings were carried out in compliance with the right to fair trial, within a reasonable time, and whether said proceedings provided the victim’s next of kin a suitable recourse to guarantee the rights to fair trial, to find the truth of the facts and to obtain a remedy. 140. The Court wishes to stress out that one of the key principles of law regarding the international responsibility of States, widely accepted in International Human Rights Law, sets forth that every State bears international responsibility for any acts or omissions by its branches or bodies in violation of internationally protected rights. Article 1(1) of the American Convention is crucial in that respect.77 141. Articles 25 and 8 of the Convention outline the scope of the aforementioned principle of responsibility for the acts of any governmental body, upon referring to the acts and omissions of domestic judicial authorities.78 142. In similar cases, this Court has found that the investigation by judicial authorities of a State’s alleged violation of international obligations may face the Court with the need to examine the related domestic proceedings. Based on the above, domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole and the duty of the international tribunal is to find out if all proceedings were carried out in compliance with international provisions.79 143. Upon performing said analysis, the Court takes into account that, pursuant to the American Convention, State Parties have a duty to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25) and that said remedies must be enforced in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)) and, as a general rule, in compliance with the States’ duty to guarantee any person under its jurisdiction free and full exercise of the rights set forth in the Convention (Article 1(1)).80 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 108; Case of the Gómez-Paquiyauri brothers, supra note 44, para. 72; and Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán-Morales et al.), supra note 47, para. 220. 77 78 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrá- Morales et al.), supra note 47, para. 220. Cf. Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 70, para. 133; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 45, para. 200; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, supra note 53, para. 120. 79 80 Cf. Case of López-Álvarez, supra note 6, para. 137; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 169; and Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 10, para. 163.