provisions provide for the right of the family members of victims of these violations to be heard throughout domestic proceedings,as well as to obtain the truth of the facts and, when appropriate, a suitable punishment for those responsible, in addition to receiving full reparation. 138. Specifically, in instances where there has been a death of an individual in violent circumstances, the Court has held that the obligation to conduct an ex officio, prompt, serious, impartial and effective investigation, within a reasonable period of time, emanates from Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention as a fundamental element, which is essential for the protection of the rights affected by these situations.209In light of Article 1.1 of the Convention, said duty requires the State to provide for a prompt and simple remedy to successfully bring, among other results, those responsible for the human rights violations before a court of law to be tried and to obtain reparation for the damage inflicted.210 Said remedies “must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law.”211 For its part, Article 2 obligates the State to suppress laws and practices that imply a violation of the guarantees established in the Convention as well as to adopt laws and implement practices leading to the effective observance of the investigation required.212. 139. As for the rights of victims’ family members to obtain justice, the Court has said that It is evident from Article 8 of the Convention that the victims of human rights violations or their next-of-kin should have substantial possibilities of being heard and acting in the respective proceedings, both in order to clarify the facts and punish those responsible, and to seek due reparation.213 140. The Court has determined that investigations conducted by the State must be performed with due diligence utilizing all legal means available and should be oriented toward the determination of the truth.214Similarly, the IACHR has held that The fact that no one has been convicted or that, despite the efforts made, it was impossible to establish the facts, does not constitute a failure to fulfill the obligation to investigate. However, in order to establish in a convincing and credible manner that this result was not the product of a mechanical implementation of certain procedural formalities without the State genuinely seeking the truth, the State must show that it carried out an immediate, exhaustive and impartial investigation.215 209I/A 196, par. 75. Court H.R. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 210I/A Court H.R, Case of Loayza Tamayo. Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, par. 169; I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1. par. 91; I/A Court H.R., Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, par. 90. 211I/A Court H.R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru.Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 124; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of la Rochela. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163. Par. 145; IA Court of HR.Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. Par. 381; and IA Court of HR.Case ofDismissed Congressional (Aguado Alfaro et al). Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, Par. 106. 212 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, par. 118; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005. Series C No. 139, par. 83, and The Last Temptation of Christ” Case (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, par. 85. 213I/A Court H.R., Case García Prieto et al v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168. Par. 102; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 227; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Serrano Cruz Brothers v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 01, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 63. 214I/A Court H.R., Case of García Prieto et al v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 101. 215IACHR, 1997 Annual Report, Report N° 55/97, Case 11.137 (Juan Carlos Abella et al), Argentina, para. 412. On this same issue, also see: IACHR, 1997 Annual Report, Report N° 52/97, Case 11.218 (Arges Sequeira Mangas), Nicaragua, para. 96 and 97. [continues …]