C. Rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection (Articles 8(1)145 and 25(1)146, and 5 of the American Convention) 102. In accordance with reiterated jurisprudence of the organs of the inter-American system, “as a result of the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention and the general obligations recognized in its Article 1.1, the States are obliged to provide effective judicial recourses to the victims of human rights violations that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law.”147 That obligation, which relates to means rather than to results, must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.148 103. States have a duty to investigate violations of human rights recognized in that instrument, such as those alleged in the instant case, and to attempt to restore, to the extent possible, the right that was violated and, where applicable, to repair the damage done by the human rights violations.149 The Commission emphasizes that Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention also established the right of family members of the victims of these violations to be heard throughout domestic proceedings, to learn the truth of what happened, where applicable to see those responsible punished appropriately, and to receive full reparation. 104. Accordingly, investigations carried out by the State must be performed with due diligence, using all available means, and directed toward ascertaining the truth.150 105. The Commission notes that the proceedings and investigation focused on the alleged drunkenness and intoxication of Mr. Acosta, not on determining the legality of his detention. The judicial authorities hearing the various appeals also failed to deliver an effective response since they not only continued the State omission of requiring objective grounds for exercising the legal authority to detain people on the basis of an alleged complaint; they also validated as legitimate the grounds cited by the police officers which are, in the Commission's opinion, as indicated above, blatantly insufficient to justify depriving José Delfín Acosta of his liberty. 106. In addition, the Commission has no information regarding any specific steps take to investigate the degree of criminal and/or administrative liability of the police officers who detained him, who opted to take him to the police station and not to a health care center if he really was suffering the degree of intoxication described by the police officers themselves, and the liability of those present in the police station while Mr. Acosta was detained there in that condition. The Commission considers that a proper investigation and activation of accountability mechanisms for police behavior were essential, moreover, to elucidate whether racism did not play a part in said behavior, as suggested by the circumstances of the detention analyzed above. 107. The Commission further observes that, faced with contradictory versions and serious doubts as to what happened, the State does not appear to have opted for an investigation as a legal duty incumbent upon it to clarify said doubts using all means at its disposal. As the Court has said, in order to clarify Article 8.1 of the American Convention: 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. 146 Article 25.1 of the American Convention: 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. 147 I/A Court HR. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Persons Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, par. 435. 148 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 177. 149 IACHR, Report 85/13, Case 12.251, Admissibility and Merits, Vereda la Esperanza, Colombia, November 4, 2013, par. 242; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, par. 75; I/A Court H.R. Case of García-Prieto et al v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, par. 99. 150 I/A Court HR. Case of García-Prieto et al v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, par. 101. 145