55 E. The rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, and the obligation to investigate the detention of Mr. Luís Antonio Galindo Cárdenas (articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1 and 2 thereof) 244. Article 8(1) of the American Convention provides the following: 1. 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. 245. Article 25(1) of the American Convention reads as follows: 1. 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. 246. Under Article 1(1) of the American Convention, The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 247. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows: Where the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms.. 248. The Court has written that “as a result of the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, 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.”196 The Court has also held that: From Article 8 of the Convention it is evident that the victims of human rights violations, or their next of kin should have substantial possibilities to be heard and to act in the respective proceedings, both to clarify the 197 facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation. 249. The Court has also held that the victims and their next of kin have the right to expect, and the States the obligation to ensure, that what befell the alleged victims will be investigated effectively by the State 196 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamani and García Santa Cruz, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, paragraph 124; I/A Court H.R., Case of the La Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, paragraph 145; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paragraph 381; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, paragraph 106. 197 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al.. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168. Paragraph 102; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63. Paragraph 227; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 01, 2005. Series C No. 120, Paragraph 63.