108. In this respect, the IACHR observes that Article 8(1) 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. 109. Article 25 (1) of the Convention establishes that: 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. 110. For its part, Article 4.1 establishes that “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” 111. The IACHR notes that Mr. Palma’s kidnapping and execution was the result of an operation planned and executed by several people who identified themselves to State agents as members of the Ecuadorian Armed Forces and that, according to the confession of at least one of them, they used this alleged investiture to pass through several official checkpoints. A generalized situation of lack of due diligence and impunity has also been verified (see infra) in terms of the investigation of the facts and events of this case, which condition the protection of the rights in question. 112. In this sense, since the State had knowledge of Mr. Palma’s kidnapping on the day after it occurred, that is since May 17, 1997, it should have initiated and been proactive in the investigation and clarification of the facts. As the proved facts show, Mr. Palma Mendoza was murdered days after having been kidnapped, and during that time, the State did not enact any type of procedure to try to determine his whereabouts. In this sense, the Commission recalls that the State has the obligation to act promptly with the first hours and days after a disappearance or kidnapping has been reported.95 In addition, the Commission observes that, in spite of the fact that the possible participation of state agents was reported, the State did not exercise its duty to investigate the reported events with due diligence (established by reports that do not go beyond denying the participation of FAE agents). In addition to all of this, Mr. Palma’-s common-law wife reported to the police on June 9, 1998 about the possible involvement of Mr. Lenin Ordóñez in Mr. Palma’s death and the police did not open any line of investigation on the matter. The Commission notes that it was not until after the statement of Lenin Ordóñez in another proceeding in February 2000, that the investigation on the kidnapping and murder of Mr. Palma was reactivated and a series of judicial procedures were conducted to locate the place where the body was buried, to exhume it, and to deliver it to his family members. 113. The Commission also notes that the perpetrators of Mr. Palma’s kidnapping and murder were found guilty through the March 19, 2001 judgment; however, it must not go without saying that failures existed in terms of the due diligence that the State must exercise when a body is being recovered and when a case is being investigated. These include, limited efforts to advance the investigation; and, later, the decision not to investigate a number of people based only on the fact that Mr. Palma’s common-law wife 95 Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of González et. al. (“Cottonfields”) Vs. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009, Ser. C., No. 205, para. 284.