33 there is nothing to show that the persons, against whom the CVR recommended bringing criminal charges, have been investigated or have been requested to make any statement in relation to the criminal investigation into the death of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz.98 135. The Court observes that, for more than 18 years, the next of kin of Saúl CantoralHuamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz have been unable to obtain judicial determination of the facts and those responsible. The domestic investigation has not guaranteed real access to justice for the next of kin of the victims, within a reasonable time; this entails the elucidation of the facts that led to the execution of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz and, if applicable, the punishment of those responsible, and the reparation of the violations. This constitutes a violation of their right to judicial protection and judicial guarantees in the terms of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 4, 5 7 and 1(1) thereof. These omissions have also signified noncompliance with the obligation to guarantee the rights established in Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. * * * 136. In addition to the above, the Commission alleged a violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture as of March 28, 1991 (the date on which the Peruvian State became a party to the Convention), owing to the failure to investigate the facts relating to torture. Regarding Article 8, the Commission stated that the Convention against Torture embodies the obligation of the State to proceed immediately to conduct an investigation and that, in this case, the State cannot defend itself by alleging the absence of evidence. Furthermore, the Commission argued that the State also violated Article 6 of the Convention against Torture because it did not investigate and did not adopt effective measures to avoid the recurrence of acts of this nature. 137. The representatives allege that the evaluations by the Institute of Legal Medicine and the Peruvian Forensic Anthropology Team show that the alleged victims were tortured before being executed. They state that Peru failed to comply with its obligation to respect Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture as of April 28, 1991, owing to the absence of an investigation and the punishment of those responsible. 138. The State claimed, as a preliminary objection, that the said treaty was not applicable in the instant case, but this has been rejected (supra paras. 16 to 19). 139. The Court considers it necessary to emphasize that even though the Convention against Torture was not in force in Peru when Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo GarcíaSanta Cruz were murdered, the State was obliged to respect the physical and moral integrity of all persons and to ensure that “no one was subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,” as established in Article 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention. With the entry into force of the Convention against Torture, as of April 28, 1991, the obligations concerning humane treatment derived from the American Convention to which the State was already subject were defined and specified, as regards, 98 Cf. Appendix concerning the Rodrigo Franco Commando of the Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (file of preliminary exception, merits, reparations and costs, page 815), and Report No. 05-2005-2º FPSP-MP-FN issued by the Regular Provincial Prosecutor of the Second Supraprovincial Criminal Prosecutors Office on December 2, 2005 (file of appendixes to the brief answering the application, appendix 6, pages 928). None of the four people mentioned in the Final Report of the CVR appear on the list of persons called to make a statement by the Regular Provincial Prosecutor of the Second Prosecutor’s Office.