which establishes the right of every person to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time 176 and confers upon the family members of victims the right to receive reparation for the harm done by the death of their loved ones.177 The Inter-American Court has pointed out that access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable period of time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to have everything possible done to know the truth of what happened and to punish those responsible.178 157. The organs of the inter-American system have underscored the importance of conducting ex officio an immediate, exhaustive, serious and impartial investigation of human rights violations. 179 They have further established that, although the duty to investigate is one of means, not results, it must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, 180 or simply as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof.181 158. Failure to observe the obligation to investigate occurs not just because no one is convicted in a case or when, despite efforts undertaken, it proves impossible to accredit the facts. However, in order to establish in a convincing and credible manner that this result was not the product of a mechanical implementation of certain procedural formalities without the State genuinely seeking the truth, the State must show that it carried out an immediate, exhaustive and impartial investigation. 182 159. In cases of violence against women, the generic obligations established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention complement one another and are reinforced, for States , like Ecuador, that are States Parties to it, the obligations derived from the specific inter-American treaty on the subject, the Convention of Belém do Pará183. Article 7.b of that Convention expressly obliges States Parties to it to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women. The Commission has pointed out that States should have an appropriate legal framework of protection that is enforced effectively, and prevention policies and practices that allow effective measures to be taken in response to complaints of violence against women. 184 160. The Inter-American Court has recently reiterated that for cases of sexual violence against adult women a series of criteria have been established that States must abide by to ensure that investigations and proceedings that have been instituted are heard with due diligence. It has also emphasized that in cases of an act of sexual violence against a girl, an intersectional approach is needed that takes the child's gender and age into account.185 The Court added that: (...) without prejudice to the standards established in cases of violence and sexual violence against adult women, the States must adopt, pursuant to Article 19 of the American IACHR. Report No. 26/09. Case 12.440. Wallace de Almeida. Brazil. March 20, 2009, par. 119. IACHR Report No. 52/16. Merits. María Laura Órdenes Guerra et al. Chile. November 30, 2016, par. 105; IACHR. Report No. 62/01, Case 11.564, Massacre of Riofrío, Colombia, April 6, 2001, par. 44. 178 See I/A Court H.R. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, par. 382, citing Vargas Areco case ; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, par. 289; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, par. 171. 179 I/A Court H.R. Godínez Cruz Case v. Honduras. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, par. 188; I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 177; I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 226. 180 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of CantoralHuamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, par. 131; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 120. 181 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 177; I/A Court H.R., Case of ZambranoVélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, par. 120. 182 IACHR, Annual Report 1997, Report 55/97, Case 11.137 (Juan Carlos Abella et al.), Argentina, par. 412. On the same matter, see also: IACHR, Annual Report 1997, Report 52/97, Case 11.218 (Arges Sequeira Mangas), Nicaragua, par. 96 and 97. 183 I/A Court H.R. Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 289, par. 239. 184 IACHR Report No. 170/11, Case 12.578, Merits, Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. et al, Guatemala, November 3, 2011, par. 84. 185 I/A Court H.R. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, par. 154. 176 177