15 effective way with the provision of the Convention which establishes that judicial proceedings must take place within a reasonable time. 60. The State, for its part, argued in its brief that it had taken steps directed toward the reparation of the human rights violations that resulted from the armed conflict, such as the cessation of the conflict through dialog, the assurance of effective control over the armed forces and security for civil authority, the training of the armed forces in human rights, the strengthening of the judicial power, and other measures adopted within the framework of the Accord of Firm and Lasting Peace, of December 29, 1996. The State also pointed to Guatemala’s acceptance of international responsibility for the unjustified delay in the administration of justice in the present case, and it stated that that acceptance should be considered to be part of the non pecuniary reparations. It added that the criminal trial concerning the acts that are being examined in the present judgment has taken its course, an “accused has been captured and efforts are being made to comply with two judicial arrest warrants for the others.” 61. The American Convention guarantees very person’s right of access to justice to assert his rights, and provides that the States Parties have the duty to prevent, investigate, identify, and punish the perpetrators of human rights violations and the accessories after the fact. 62. In the judgment on the merits, the Court stated that Article 8(1) of the American Convention, which sets forth the right of every person to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial judge or tribunal for his rights of any nature, also includes the right of the victim’s relatives to judicial guarantees. The Court recognizes that Article 8.1 of the American Convention recognizes the right of Mr. Nicholas Blake’s relatives to have his disappearance and death effectively investigated by the Guatemalan authorities; to have those responsible prosecuted for committing said unlawful acts; to have the relevant punishment meted out where appropriate; and to be compensated for the damages and injuries they sustained. (Blake Case, supra 56, para.97) 63. Article 8(1) of the American Convention bears a direct relation to Article 25 in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, which guarantees to all persons a simple and rapid recourse so that, among other things, those responsible for human rights violations will be tried and reparations may be obtained for the damages suffered. As the Court has stated, Article 25 “is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very rule of law in a democratic society in the terms of the Convention” inasmuch as it contributes decisively to assure access to justice. (Castillo Páez Case, Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, paras. 82 and 83; Suárez Rosero Case, Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 65; Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 164; Loayza Tamayo Case, Reparations, supra 31, para. 169, and Castillo Páez Case, Reparations, supra 31, para. 106). 64. The State has the duty to prevent and combat impunity, which the Court has defined as “the total lack of investigation, prosecution, capture, trial and conviction of those responsible for violations of the rights protected by the American Convention.” (Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra 63, para. 173) In this respect, the Court has advised that