... reasonable to assess as evidence the indications contained in the case file ... that point to the involvement of state agents in these events, particularly those handled by the very state agencies that were in charge of the investigation which have not been disproven by the State. Reaching any other conclusion would entail allowing the State to resort to its own negligence or inefficacy [in] the criminal investigation to release itself from responsibility for the violation of Article 4(1) of the Convention.98 78. Likewise, the Court has reiterated that failure to investigate alleged violations committed against someone when there are suggestions of involvement of state agents “prevents the State from presenting a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the [facts] alleged, and disproves the arguments concerning its responsibility, with adequate probative elements.”99 The Court has considered such failure to clarify the facts as a factor to be born in mind in accrediting alleged violations and the attendant international and responsibility. 100 79. By virtue of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the State violated the right to humane treatment established in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Lopez Sosa. The State also violated to his detriment Articles 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. C. Rights to a fair trial and judicial protection and duty to investigate and punish acts of torture 80. The Inter-American Court has found that the State has an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to persons who claim to be victims of human rights violations (Article 25 of the Convention), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1) of the Convention), the foregoing in keeping with the general obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1) of the Convention). Thus, it has maintained that, "the right of the alleged victims or their relatives to know the truth about what happened and that those responsible be punished must be ensured within a reasonable time (...) Consequently, the State has a duty to investigate the facts, which is one of means, not results, that must be assumed by the State as its own legal duty and be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective, 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.”101 81. In particular, in the light of the general obligation contained in Article 1 (1) of the Convention, “the State has the obligation to commence immediately an effective investigation that may allow the identification, the trial and the punishment of those liable, whenever there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention.” 102 Therefore, “as soon as the State authorities become aware of an act that could amount to torture, they must initiate, ‘ex officio and without delay, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation’ by all lawful means available in order to determine the truth and to ensure the pursuit, capture, trial, and eventual punishment, where applicable, of all the architects and material perpetrators of the deeds, especially when State agents are or may be involved.103 82. As mentioned in the previous section, the duty to investigate provided for in the American Convention is reinforced by the provisions of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. According to Article 8 of that instrument, “States Parties shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, par. 97. 99 I/A Court H.R., Case of J v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C. No. 275, par. 353. 100 I/A Court H.R., Case of J v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C. No. 275, par. 354. 101 I/A Court H.R., Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 2, 2015, par. 75. 102 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia, Judgment of September 12, 2005, Series C. No. 132, par. 54. 103 I/A Court H.R., Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al. v. Chile, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of September 2, 2015, par. 76. 98 20