B. Considerations of the Court 135. The Court will now discuss: (1) general considerations on the duty to investigate; (2) an examination of the actions taken in the case, and (3) its conclusion. B.1 General considerations on the duty to investigate 136. The Court has held that, pursuant to Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, States “must provide effective judicial remedies to victims of human rights violations,” which “must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process,” in keeping with the general obligation to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention in its Article 1(1).163 137. In this context, the right to access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims of human rights violations, or their family members, that “everything necessary must be done to know the truth of what occurred and to investigate, prosecute and punish, where appropriate, those eventually found responsible.”164 This obligation acquires particular importance depending on the nature of the rights violated and the gravity of the crimes committed.165 The Court has declared that the State has a duty to investigate attempts against personal integrity 166 and against life,167 including extrajudicial executions168 and forced disappearances.169 In cases of forced disappearances, the obligation to investigate is reinforced by the those established in the respective norms of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons,170 among them those found in Article I (b) and (d), which are relevant to this case and which refer to the duties to punish the crime of forced disappearance or its attempt and to take measures to comply with the commitments Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91 and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, para. 125. 163 Cf. Case of Mota Abarullo et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2020. Series C No. 417, para. 120 and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 424, para. 136. See also, among others: Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91. 164 165 66. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, para. 128 and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, para Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, paras.106 and 107 and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, paras. 125 to 133. 166 167 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, paras. 74 to 81 and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, paras. 136 to 153 and 162. Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 143 and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela, para. 136 to 153 and 162. 168 Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 177 and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, paras. 66 to 89. 169 Cf. Case of Terrones Silva et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 360, para. 181 and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, para. 66. 170 38