time and of the obligation of due diligence in relation to: (i) the handling of the corpses; (ii) the lack of rigor in the inspection and preservation of the scene of the events; (iii) the inappropriate handling of the evidence collected, and (iv) the inappropriate methods used to preserve the chain of custody (supra para. 21.c). However, the dispute persists concerning the other situations that the Commission and the representatives allege have violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 435. The Court recalls that, based on the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, States are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations, which must be made available in accordance with the rules of due process of law. 672 The Court has also 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 duly punish those eventually found responsible. 673 436. The obligation to investigate human rights violations is one of the positive measures that States must take to ensure the rights recognized in the Convention. 674 Thus, starting with its first judgment, this Court has stressed the importance of the State’s duty to investigate and punish violations of human rights, 675 and this is particularly important in view of the severity of the offenses committed and the nature of the rights harmed. 676 437. Furthermore, the obligation to investigate, prosecute, and punish, as appropriate, those responsible for acts that violate human rights is not derived solely from the American Convention; in certain circumstances and depending on the nature of the acts, it also arises from other inter-American instruments that establish the obligation of the States parties to investigate the conducts prohibited by those treaties. In relation to the events of this case, the obligation to investigate is reinforced by the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance and the Inter-American Convention against Torture. 677 The provisions of these treaties stipulate and supplement the State’s obligations as regards respecting and ensuring the rights recognized in the American Convention, and also “the international corpus juris concerning the protection of personal integrity.” 678 438. The Court notes that these specific State obligations derived from the said specialized conventions may be required of the State as of the date on which it deposited the 672 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of the Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 199. 673 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 Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 283, para. 199. 674 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paras. 166 and 176, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 214. 675 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 166, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 27, 2014. Series C No. 281, para. 214. 676 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 128, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 177. 677 Colombia ratified the Inter-American Convention against Torture on December 2, 1998. 678 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 276, 377, 378 and 379, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 233. 153