B. Considerations of the Court 85. The Court has already established in this Judgment that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Pedro Miguel Vera Vera for the noncompliance of its obligation to guarantee his rights to life and humane treatment [personal integrity] as a consequence of the medical negligence he suffered after he received a gunshot wound, and his subsequent death while under State custody. Below, the Court will analyze the alleged failure to investigate these facts by the State in light of the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection recognized in the American Convention.93 86. The Court noted that from Article 8 of the American Convention it is clear that victims of human rights violations or their next of kin should have ample opportunities to be heard and to participate in their respective processes, in order to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, as well as to seek a due reparation. The Court has held that States are under an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to those who claim to be victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due legal procedure (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation of such States to guarantee free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons under its jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). Moreover, the Court has noted that the obligation to investigate and the corresponding right of the alleged victim or their next of kin cannot be gathered merely from the conventional norms of international law which are imperative for the States Parties, but also from the right to investigate ex oficio certain illicit conduct and the norms that permit the victims or their next of kin to file a complaint or present a lawsuit, evidence, or applications, or any other matter, in order to participate procedurally in the criminal investigation with the hope of establishing the truth of the facts. 94 93 In relevant part, Article 8 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. Article 25(1) of the American Convention notes that: “[e]veryone 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.” 94 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras, supra note 3, para. 91; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010 Series C No. 217, para. 151, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 7, para. 151. See also, Cf. Case of Gomes Lund (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil, supra note 4, para. 139. 34