37 141. The Court has also ruled that “the conduct of an effective investigation is a fundamental and conditioning element for the protection of certain rights that are otherwise affected or annulled by those situations, such as the right to life, personal liberty and personal integrity.” 146 142. The Commission has stated that these provisions enshrine the obligation of the State to ensure access to justice with guarantees of legality, independence and impartiality within a reasonable time, as well as the general obligation to provide an effective judicial remedy to any violation of fundamental rights, observing the principle of effectiveness of procedural instruments or mechanisms. 147 143. The Inter-American Court, for its part, has found that under the the American Convention, States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all in keeping with the general obligation of such States to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to all persons subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)). 148 144. By the same token, the Court has ruled that victims and their next of kin have the right to expect, and the States the obligation to ensure, that what befell the alleged victims will be investigated effectively by the State authorities; that proceedings will be filed against those allegedly responsible for the unlawful acts; and, if applicable, the pertinent penalties will be imposed, and the losses suffered by the next of kin repaired. 149 Based on the foregoing, once state authorities have knowledge of a violation of human rights, in particular of the rights to life, humane treatment, and personal liberty, 150 they should initiate a serious, impartial and effective investigation, ex oficio and without delay, 151 which should be carried out within a reasonable time. 152 145. As regards reasonableness of time, the Court has found that the right of access to justice goes beyond the processing of domestic proceedings, but that the investigation should be undertaken utilizing all the legal means available and should be oriented toward the determination of 146 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C, No. 140, par. 145. 147 IACHR. Application of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Case of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia, February 13, 2007, par. 118. 148 287. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C, No. 148, par. 149 I/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, par. 103; I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100, par. 114; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160, par. 382. I/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, par. 100. 150 151 I/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, par. 101; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C, No. 110, pars. 146; I/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, par. 130. I/A Court H.R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C, No. 100, par. 114; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, par. 146; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C, No. 160, par. 382. 152