173. In the instant case, the Commission notes that, based on the evidence and records in the case file, no State authority has undertaken any serious and diligent investigation into the acts of torture that were the subject of complaints, even though at several different points in time agents of the State and many authorities became aware of these acts throughout the proceedings. 174. The Commission notes that i) the medical experts of the National Office of Forensic Medicine and Rehabilitation directly assessed and identified the injuries endured by the alleged victims (see paragraphs 76-79 above); ii) these examination reports were brought to the attention of the Eighth Judge for Criminal Matters of Pichincha (see paragraph 75 above); iii) the Judge who took the initial statements of the alleged victims was informed that these pre-indictment statements were obtained from injuries for the purpose of forcing them to self-incriminate (see paragraphs 89 and 91 above); iv) both the Second Court for Criminal Matters of Pichincha and the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice and the Office of the Public Prosecutor of Pichincha also heard the initial statements of the alleged victims before the judge and had before them the judicial case file containing the findings of the medical examinations of August 9, 1994; v) lastly, in the case file of the criminal proceedings, the Commission notices that there is a submission of July 2, 1996 from Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles addressed to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Justice claiming that he had been beaten to get him to say that he had committed criminal activities and that the prosecuting attorney had intimidated him so he would sign a statement in which there appeared “things that he never heard of” (see paragraph 90 above). 175. Even though several agents of the State were aware of the acts, the State failed to undertake an investigation on its own initiative, violating the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, as established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the right to humane treatment and Article 1.1 of the same instrument to the detriment of Jorge Eliécer Herrera Espinoza, Alfonso Jaramillo González, Eusebio Domingo Revelles and Emmanuel Cano. 176. Additionally, since the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture came into force in Ecuador on December 9, 1999, the Commission notes that in keeping with the legal precedents of the Court, as of that date “the State is demandable regarding compliance with the obligations set forth in that treaty.”151 Accordingly, the Commission finds that the failure to investigate in this case also constitutes a violation of the obligations set forth in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, as of the time said instrument came into force. C. Criminal Proceedings against Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles 177. The Commission recalls that it is a basic principle of the law of international responsibility of the State, as established in International Human Rights Law, that every State is internationally responsible for acts and omissions of any of its branches of government or bodies in violation of internationally enshrined rights, under Article 1.1 of the American Convention. 152 Furthermore, Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention specify the scope of the above-cited principle with regard to the acts and failure to act of domestic judicial bodies,153 as well as non-judicial bodies charged with the task of investigation prior to judicial proceedings. 154 178. 151 In this regard, the Commission deems it fitting to recall that: IA Court of HR, Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 159. IA Court of HR, Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 172; IA Court of HR, Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 140; IA Court of HR, Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, paras. 111-112; and IA Court of HR, Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 108. 152 153 IA Court of HR, Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 28; and IA Court of HR, Case of Herrera Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 109. 154 133. IA Court of HR, Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 41