48 235. Furthermore, in cases such as the instant one, in which acts that amount to torture could have been committed, Inter-American Court has held that the State has the obligation to carry out an effective investigation to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible: in the light of the general obligation to guarantee all persons under their jurisdiction the human rights enshrined in the Convention, established in Article 1(1) of the same, along with the right to humane treatment pursuant to Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of said treaty, there is a State obligation to start ex officio and immediately an effective investigations that allows it to identify, prosecute, and punish the responsible parties, when there is an accusation or well214 grounded reason to believe than an act of torture has been committed. 236. In the instant case, the petitioners argue that even though the facts were investigated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the State has not acknowledged in an international proceeding its responsibility for the illegal detention and subsequent forced disappearance of the 15 victims. Despite that, the State does not dispute the facts and in a number of documents accepts that the facts occurred. The petitioners argue that, at first, there was no response of any kind from the State authorities to the complaints presented by the victims and their next-of-kin. They say that a criminal proceeding was opened in the ordinary courts only after Zósimo Hilario Quispe lodged the complaint of November 29, 1991; in other words, almost five months after the events occurred. However, that proceeding was set aside following the adoption of Amnesty Law 26479. The petitioners argue that in the instant case there have been various violations of fair trial guarantees, such as destruction of evidence and negligence in the custody thereof, as well as obstruction of the investigation due to threats to justice operators. The petitioners say that members of the army took it upon themselves to destroy the evidence at the scene of the crime. They argue that although two criminal proceedings are currently underway, neither of them has concluded, even though the events occurred almost 20 years ago, which constitutes an unwarranted delay in processing those remedies. 237. For its part, the State has not refuted the facts. However, it notes that the fact that a final outcome has not been reached in the case is not reason enough to brand the State a “promoter of impunity” since the rule of discretion of justice system operators must be observed. In that connection, the State argues that the Commission cannot take upon itself the functions of an appeals court. As regards the submissions of the petitioners with respect to destruction of evidence of the crimes by agents of the State, as well as those concerning threats of physical harm made to witnesses and relatives of the victims, the State argues that these allegations have not been proved and that, in any case, they refer to a different political situation which Peru has since overcome. 238. The Commission, therefore, must determine if the State has conducted the criminal investigations with due diligence and within a reasonable time, and if those investigations have been effective 215 remedies for ensuring the alleged victims’ right of access to justice. 239. The Commission wishes to emphasize that its analysis in this chapter must consider the particular seriousness of the allegations. Accordingly, the Commission will consider the matter in the light of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, under which the State has a duty to prevent and punish torture and to take “effective measures to prevent and punish torture within [its] jurisdiction,” given that the 214 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160, par. 345; Case of Vargas-Areco, Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C, No. 155, par. 79; Case of Gutiérrez Soler, Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C, No. 132, par. 54; and Case of Baldeón García, Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C, No. 147, par. 156. In the same connection, see Eur.C.H.R., Case of Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], Judgment of 27 June 2000, App. No. 22277/93, paras. 92 and 93; and Eur.C.H.R., Case of Assenov and others v. Bulgaria, Judgment of 28 October 1998, App. No. 90/1997/874/1086, para. 102. See also IACHR, Report 53/01, Case 11.565 Ana Beatriz and Celia González Pérez (Mexico), April 4, 2001. 215 I/A Court H.R, Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, Judgment of September 22, 2009, Series C No. 202, par. 126.