B.1 Enhanced due diligence and the duty of special protection in investigations and criminal proceedings related to sexual violence committed against children and the duty of non-revictimization B.1.(a) The essential components of the duty of enhanced due diligence and the special protection of children 92. The Court has reiterated that, in accordance with the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of the due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation, carried out by the States themselves, to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons under their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).154 93. Similarly, the Court has consistently indicated that the duty to investigate is an obligation of means and not of results, which must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and not as a simple formality condemned in advance to be fruitless.155 The aforementioned obligation remains “regardless of the agent to whom the violation may be attributed, even individuals, since if their actions are not seriously investigated they would be, in a certain way, aided by public power, which would compromise the international responsibility of the State.”156 Furthermore, the investigation must be serious, objective and effective, and be aimed at determining the truth, and the persecution, capture, and possible prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators of the events.157 94. It should be remembered that, in cases of violence against women, the general obligations provided for in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention are complemented and reinforced by the obligations arising from the Convention of Belém do Pará.158 In its Article 7(b), said Convention specifically obliges States Parties to use “due diligence to prevent, investigate and eradicate violence against women.”159 In turn, Article 7(f) provides that States must “establish fair and effective legal procedures for women who have been subjected to violence, which include, among others, protective measures, a timely hearing and effective access to such procedures.”160 Thus, in the event of an act Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra, para. 91, and Case of Aroca Palma et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 8, 2022. Series C No. 471, para. 103. 154 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 177, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 85. 155 Cf. Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 19, 2015. Series C No. 307, para. 143, and Case 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, para. 151. 156 157 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 127, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 85. In relation to the investigation of acts committed against women, the application of the Convention of Belém do Pará does not depend on an absolute degree of certainty as to whether or not the act to be investigated constituted violence against women in the terms of said Convention. In this regard, it should be highlighted that it is through compliance with the duty to investigate established in Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará that, in various cases, certainty can be reached as to whether or not the act investigated constituted violence against women. The fulfillment of such a duty cannot, therefore, be made dependent on said certainty. It is then sufficient, in order to trigger the obligation to investigate under the terms of the Convention of Belém do Pará, that the fact in question presents material characteristics that, reasonably examined, indicate the possibility that it is an act of violence against women. Cf. Case of Véliz Franco et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2014. Series C No. 277, footnote 254, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2021. Series C No. 435, footnote 288. 158 159 Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 193, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 15, 2021. Series C No. 444, para. 156. Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra, para. 193, and Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2020. Series C No. 405, para. 117. 160 29