al[low] the State to intervene" to mitigate any dangerous situation. Nonetheless, it was indicated that a process has been initiated for the alleged crime of torture, and it is currently under investigation, with certain procedures already having been carried out.165 The State did not specify on what date such investigation had begun, but requested that this fact be evaluated in light of the principle of subsidiarity of the Inter-American Human Rights System. B. Considerations of the Court 131. The obligation to ensure the human rights enshrined in the American Convention is not fulfilled by the existence of a legal system designed to make it possible to comply with this obligation, but rather, it also requires the state to conduct itself so as to effectively ensure the free and full exercise of human rights.166 One of the conditions to effectively guarantee the right to life and personal integrity is fulfilling the duty to investigate the violation of such rights, which is derived from Article 1(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the substantive right which should be preserved, protected, or guaranteed.167 132. The Court has verified that the authorities were aware of the physical assaults that were apparently caused by the members of the Puñachizag and Shaushi communities against María Gregoria Naranjo and Marcia Núñez Naranjo, at least since August 16, 2001, as such matters are found in the police report issued on that date (supra para. 45 and note 50).168 However, the investigation related to these events,169 for the alleged crime of torture, was only initiated at a date later than 2018, that is, more than 17 years after the alleged violations. While the Court positively values the initiation of said preliminary investigation, it cautions that the extensive period elapsed since the events under investigation occurred, and its initiation is not justified and constitutes, in turn, a significant obstacle for it to determine what happened and to sanction the parties eventually found to be responsible. 133. Therefore, the Court considers that the State failed to fulfill its obligation to promptly initiate a serious, impartial, and effective investigation aimed at determining the truth, as well as the trial and punishment of all those responsible for the allegedly occurred events. For this reason, the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of María Gregoria Naranjo and Marcia Núñez Naranjo. Noted that the following has been carried out: (i) "[t]aking of statements"; (ii) "[p]eriodic visits to the relatives of Mr. Fredy Núñez"; (iii) "report on the social environment of all family members" and (iv) "[m]edical-psychiatric assessment report of Naranjo María Georgina and Núñez Naranjo Marcia Lorena." 166 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 166 and 167, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of October 1, 2021. Series C No. 439, para. 82. 167 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 92, and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 147. 168 According to a police report, the three detainees were transferred to the community of Puñachizag where "after flogging the two women, they have set them at liberty in the community of Shaushi." Cf. Police Report No. 1123-PJT-CP92001 of August 16, 2001 (case file of evidence, page 25). According to the statement given by Sixto Núñez, "they b[lindfolded] [all] three of them and tied their hands behind their backs, beating them mercilessly." Cf. Statement given by Sixto Núñez on April 29, 2002 before the Prosecutor of Tungurahua (case file of evidence, page 34) and Provisional stay of proceedings by the Fourth Criminal Court of Tungurahua of December 11, 2002 (case file of evidence, page 45). According to María Gregoria Naranjo, "[they] hit her and her daughter Marcia Núñez Naranjo, but not too hard." Cf. Statement by María Gregoria Naranjo given at the public hearing on February 3, 2023. 169 Processed under Preliminary Investigation No. 180101820060459. Cf. Memorandum No. FPT-FCQ-2020-00078-M from the Prosecutor General's Office of December 18, 2020 (case file of evidence, page 1556) and Memorandum No. FPTFCQ-2021-00024-M from the Prosecutor General's Office of March 18, 2021 (case file of evidence, page 1560). 165 -37-