61 National Agrarian Council open or in compliance with this resolution, they may demand annulment of the title deed issued by the Mayor’s Office of Tela to its union. B. Considerations of the Court 226. The Court has consistently expressed that the States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).225 227. Similarly, this Court’s case law has stated in other cases that indigenous and tribal peoples have the right to have effective and expedite mechanisms to protect, guarantee, and promote their rights over indigenous lands, through which they may carry out the acknowledgment, titling, demarcation, and delimitation processes of their territorial right. 226 The procedures mentioned must comply with the rules of the due process of law enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention.227 228. Likewise, the Court has reiterated that the right of every person to a simple and rapid recourse or any other effective remedy before competent judges or courts that will protect them from acts that violate their fundamental rights “is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society in the terms of the Convention.”228 Also, in what regards indigenous and tribal peoples, it is essential for the States to grant effective protection that takes into account their specificities, their economic and social characteristics, as well as their situation of special vulnerability, their customary law, values, and customs.229 229. Moreover, the Court has previously set forth that the obligation to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute and punish those responsible for human rights violations, is one of the positive measures that the State must take to ensure the rights recognized in the Convention,230 pursuant to Article 1(1) of that instrument. This duty is an obligation that must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and not a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, or as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family, or upon their offer of proof.231 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91 and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 2, 2015. Series C No. 300, para. 75. 225 Cfr. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 138, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C No. 214, para. 109. 226 Cfr. Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 92, and Case of Human Rights Defender et al. v. Guatemala, para. 199. 227 Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 82, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Surinam. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 42. 228 Cfr. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, para. 63, and Case of the Kichwa de Sarayaku Indigenous People v. Ecuador, para. 264. 229 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, paras. 166 and 167, and Case of Veliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, para. 183. 230 Cfr. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 177, and Case of the Landaeta Mejías Brothers et al. v. Venezuela, para. 216. 231