24 72. Consequently, the Court consider that the ill-treatment and injuries that Mr. Escué Zapata suffered involved a violation on the part of the State of the right to humane treatment as established in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention. * * * 73. As regards the obligation to guarantee the right enshrined in Article 5 of the American Convention, the Court pointed out that said obligation embodies the duty of the State to investigate possible acts of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.82 74. In the same sense, the Tribunal has previously stated that: in the light of the general obligation to guarantee all persons under their jurisdiction the human rights enshrined in the Convention, established in Article 1(1) of the same, along with the right to humane treatment pursuant to Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of said treaty, there is a state obligation to start ex officio and immediately an effective investigation that allows it to identify, prosecute, and punish the responsible parties, when there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed .83 75. In sum, the duty to investigate constitutes an imperative obligation of the state that derives from international law and cannot be disregarded or conditioned by domestic acts or legal provisions of any nature. As has been stated by the Court, in cases of serious breaches to fundamental rights the imperious need to avoid the repetition of said facts depends, to a great extent, on the avoidance of their impunity and satisfying the right of both victims and society as a whole to have access to the knowledge of the truth of what happened. The obligation to investigate constitutes a means to guarantee said rights, and failure to comply with it brings about the State’s international responsibility.84 76. In this case, the evaluation of the duty to guarantee the right to humane treatment through a serious, complete and effective investigation of the events shall be done in Chapter X of this Judgment. It is enough to mention for the purposes of determining the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, that in case at hand, the State has not effectively guaranteed the right to humane treatment. B) With respect to the victim’s relatives 77. This Court has affirmed, in several opportunities, that the relatives of the victim of violations of human rights may, in turn, be victims.85 In this regard, the Court has considered that the violation of the mental and moral integrity of the next of kin due to the additional suffering is precisely a direct consequence of the violations committed against their beloved ones and as a result of the delay proceedings or omissions on the part of State investigation has been carried out followed by the prosecution of the responsible. Cf. Case of "Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al), supra, note 34. para. 170, Case of Baldeón-Garcia v. Peru. Supra note 38; Para. 120. 82 Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 19; Para. 142; Case of Bueno-Alves, supra note 9, para. 88; Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 17, para. 344. 83 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García v. Peru supra note 38, para. 156; Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 89; Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 17, para. 345. 84 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 18, para. 174-7; Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 90; Case of Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 17, para. 347. 85 Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. 160; Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 102, and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 137.