designed to resolve anomalies in detentions that might be made by State agents, in this case it constituted a fundamental reference point of the mechanisms to look for Mr. Palma.” It added that “the application for habeas corpus in Manta expedited the investigation into the whereabouts of [Mr.] Palma Mendoza in [several] institutions”104 and that “there was no evidence to establish that Mr. Palma Mendoza had been detained in military installations of the State.” Considerations of the Court 79. For its analysis in this section, the Court will refer to the obligation to ensure the right to life and, then, will examine the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument in relation to the different measures taken in the investigation and the criminal proceedings held. 1. Obligation to guarantee the right to life (Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this treaty) 80. In this case, it has not been found proved that the State incurred responsibility to the detriment of Mr. Palma Mendoza owing to the participation of State agents in the events that led to his death (infra paras. 100 and 101). Furthermore, with regard to the right to the investigation of the alleged violation of the right to life, both the Commission and the representatives have claimed State responsibility to the detriment of his next of kin. This Court understands that, in the instant case, the right of the said next of kin in relation to the investigation into Mr. Palma’s death is only admissible in light of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 2. Rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, in relation to the obligation to investigate the facts (Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this treaty) 2.1. General considerations regarding the obligation to investigate 81. States have the obligation to establish in their laws and to ensure the correct application of effective remedies and guarantees of due process of law before the competent authorities that protect all those subject to their jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights.105 This Court’s case law has already indicated that these remedies must not only exist formally by law, but must also be effective.106 82. In addition to the foregoing, it should be clarified that, in the instant case, access to justice is a right of the next of kin who have suffered a violation of protected rights, because such individuals can also be considered as victims of the unlawful act.107 104 Such as the following authorities: the Commander of the Ecuadorian Air Force, No. 23 Combat Wing; the Manta Port Captain (the city’s naval authority); the Chief of the Manta Police Force; the Chief of Police of the Manta OID Crime Investigation Office; the Manabí Criminal Judiciary (the Eighth Criminal Court of Manabí); the Traffic Judge, and the National Police Chiefs (preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs file, answering brief, Tome II, folio 359). 105 Cf. Case of Suarez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 65, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 104. 106 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 28. 107 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 167. 27