56 authorities; that proceedings will be filed against those allegedly responsible for the unlawful acts; and, if 198 applicable, the pertinent penalties will be imposed, and the losses suffered by the next of kin redressed. 250. From the foregoing it follows that once the State authorities learn of an act that violates human 199 rights, including the rights to humane treatment and personal liberty, they have an obligation to undertake ex 200 officio and without delay, a serious, impartial and effective investigation, which is to be conducted within a 201 reasonable period of time. 251. The IACHR has maintained that “in light of the general obligation of the States party to respect and ensure the rights of all persons under their jurisdiction, contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the duty to immediately and ex officio begin an effective investigation to identify, try, and punish those responsible, when there is a complaint or there are grounds to believe that an act of torture has been 202 committed in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention.” 252. Along this same line of reasoning, the Inter-American Court has held that: based on the general obligation to guarantee every person subject to its jurisdiction the human rights set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention, together with the right to personal integrity set forth in Article 5 (Right to Personal Integrity) of the treaty, the State has the obligation to immediately initiate ex officio an effective investigation to identify, prosecute and punish perpetrators when a complaint has been filed or 203 when there are sufficient reasons to believe that an act of torture has been committed. 253. Based on the facts established in the instant case, the Commission observes that Mr. Galindo filed a complaint with the Provincial Prosecutor of First Instance on December 13, 1994, regarding the militarypolice investigation to which he had been subjected for the alleged crime of terrorism and during which he had been held in custody and then released without ever knowing “how the authorities had decided his case.” Mr. Galindo also complained that: 1) he was never formally notified of the charge against him or of the reasons for his detention, a detention that happened after the President of the Republic had already told the media about his case and his detention, even though he was at the time not yet in custody; 2) his detention was arbitrary both procedurally and substantively and had exceeded the legal limit, as he was held for 31 days without ever being brought before the competent judge; 3) his position as a provisional magistrate on the Huánuco Superior Court was not respected as required under Article 191 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary; 4) he was held in confinement on a military base where he initially suffered psychological torture and was held incommunicado; 5) reports were circulated to the effect that he had claimed the benefits of the Repentance Law, which was a false and tendentious 198 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 103; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, Paragraph 114; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. Paragraph 382. 199 I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. Paragraph 100. 200 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 101; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110. Paragraphs 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. Paragraph 130. 201 I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100. Paragraph 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the La Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163.Paragraph 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. Paragraph 382. 202 203 IACHR, Report No. 88/08, Case 12.449, Teodoro Cabrera García and Rodolfo Montiel Flores, October 30, 2008, paragraph 158. I/A Court H.R., Case of Baldeón García. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, paragraph 156; Case of Gutiérrez Soler. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, paragraph 54; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, paragraph 159 and Case of Ximenes Lopes. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, paragraph 148. See also, Eur.C.H.R., Assenov and others v. Bulgaria, no. 90/1997/874/1086, Judgment of 28 October 1998, par. 102 and Eur.C.H.R., Ilhan v. Turkey [GC], no. 22277/93, Judgment of 27 June 2000, paras. 89-93.