40 Under the American Convention, States Parties have an obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25), remedies that must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 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 (Art. 1.1).205 171. The Commission notes that, according to the established facts, a complaint was lodged with the Disciplinary Investigation Unit of the National Civilian Police for the alleged mistreatment that Mr. Ruano Torres suffered at the hands of the police officers during his arrest. The Commission further notes that no disciplinary investigation was opened with respect to the police officers who participated in his arrest. 172. On this point, the Court has ruled that state authorities, once they have been made aware of a human rights violation, particularly one involving the right to humane treatment,206 have the duty of initiating, without delay and on an ex officio basis, a serious, impartial, and effective investigation,207 which must be completed within a reasonable time.208 In compliance with the duty of conducting serious investigations into violations of the right to human treatment, states are obligated to act, as of the very first procedures, with the utmost diligence.209 173. The Commission holds that after this complaint was filed, the State did not take any steps to investigate whether Mr. Ruano Torres had indeed suffered acts of torture during his arrest. This omission is made more serious by the statement in the police record that force was used on account of Mr. Ruano Torres’s alleged refusal to be taken into custody. In addition, no investigation was conducted to ascertain whether the lacerations and scars reported in Mr. Ruano Torres’s medical examination on the day of his arrest were due to the alleged violence. 174. The IACHR notes that neither the National Civilian Police’s Disciplinary Investigation Unit nor the judicial authorities ordered any medical examinations to investigate the torture claims. On the contrary, the record shows that the first-instance court in Tonacatepeque opposed a fresh medical examination of José Agapito Ruano Torres after he had reported the facts. 175. Thus, the only medical examination conducted took place on the day of his arrest, and was performed by the Medical Services Unit of the National Civilian Police. In this regard, the 205 I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, para. 381; I/A Court H. R., Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, Judgment of September 22, 2006, Series C No. 153, para. 110; I/A Court H. R., Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras, Judgment of September 21, 2006, Series C No. 152, para. 147; and I/A Court H. R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Judgment of July 4, 2006, Series C No. 149, para. 175. 206 I/A Court H. R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, Judgment of July 10, 2007, Series C No. 167, para. 100. 207 I/A Court H. R., Case of García Prieto et al. v. El Salvador, Judgment of November 20, 2007, Series C No. 168, para. 101; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Judgment of July 8, 2004, Series C No. 110, para. 146; I/A Court H. R., Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, Judgment of July 10, 2007, Series C No. 167, para. 130. 208 I/A Court H. R., Case of Bulacio v. Argentina, Judgment of September 18, 2003, Series C No. 100, para. 114; I/A Court H. R., Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Judgment of May 11, 2007, Series C No. 163, para. 146; and I/A Court H. R., Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 382. 209 I/A Court H. R., Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2007, Series C No. 166, para. 121.