70 Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 241. According to the Court, the right to fair trial means that everyone suffering from a violation of his/her human rights has “the right to (…) to obtain clarification of the events that violated human rights and the corresponding responsibilities from the competent organs of the State, through investigation and prosecution.”357 Regarding the right to judicial protection, the Court has established that the American Convention: (...) obliges the State to guarantee to every individual access to the administration of justice and, in particular, to simple and prompt recourse, so that, inter alia, those responsible for human rights violations may be prosecuted and reparations obtained for the damages suffered. (…) [A]rticle 25 is one of the fundamental pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the very 358 rule of law in a democratic society (...). 242. As a result, the State has the following obligation: “[E]ach State act that composes the investigation proceeding, and the entire investigation in itself, should be oriented at a specific purpose: the determination of the truth and the investigation, finding, arrest, prosecution and, if applicable, punishment of those responsible for the events.”359 Regarding cases of forced disappearance, the Court has pointed out that the right to access to justice includes, in the investigation of the facts, finding out the fate or whereabouts of the victim and, if applicable, where his/her mortal remains are located.360 In that regard, the Court has indicated that the right to truth is subsumed in the right of the victim or his/her next of kin to obtain from the State bodies having jurisdiction clarification of the events violating his/her rights and establishment of those responsible by investigation and sentencing as provided for by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.361 243. It is understood that the obligation to investigate is an obligation of means, not of results, which must be taken up by the State as a legal obligation pertaining to it and not undertaken as 357 I/A Court H.R., Case of Barrios Altos v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of March 14, 2001. Series C No. 75, paragraph 48. 358 I/A Court H.R., Case of Loayza Tamayo. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, paragraph 169; Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, paragraph 90. 359 I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, paragraph 101. 360 I/A Court H.R., Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, paragraph 192; Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 181; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2007. Series C No. 173, paragraph 231; and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, paragraph 118. 361 I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, paragraph 78; Case of Almonacid Arellano and others v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paragraph 150; and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163, paragraph 147.