C. 189. following: The right to a fair trial and to judicial protection (Articles 8(1), 25(1), and 1(1) of the American Convention); and obligations derived from Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons The articles of the American Convention referred to in the preceding title establish the Article 8(1) Right to a Fair Trial Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. Article 25(1) Judicial Protection Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 190. Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons establishes that the states parties to that Convention undertake to “punish within their jurisdictions, those persons who commit or attempt to commit the crime of forced disappearance of persons and their accomplices and accessories.” 1. General considerations on the duty to investigate in cases of forced disappearance 191. According to the inter-American case-law, when there is a report of a forced disappearance, there is an unbreakable bond between the state response and the protection of life and integrity of the person reported disappeared. The Commission reiterates that “when there are reasonable motives to suspect that a person has been forcibly disappeared, swift and immediate action on the part of prosecutorial and judicial authorities is necessary. This may be achieved by ordering necessary and appropriate measures aimed at ascertaining the whereabouts of the victim or the location of the place in which he or she may be deprived of their liberty.”171 192. The Court has established that “as a result of the protection granted by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the States are obliged to provide effective judicial recourses to the victims of human rights violations that must be substantiated according to the rules of due process of law.”172 The Court has also indicated: 171 I/A Court HR. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 134; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 221, Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 167. See also Matter of Natera Balboa. Provisional measures with respect to Venezuela. Order of the Court of February 1, 2010, Thirteenth considering paragraph, and Matter of Guerrero Larez. Provisional measures with respect to Venezuela. Order of the Court of August 29, 2013. Sixth considering paragraph. 172 I/A Court HR, Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167. Para. 124; I/A Court HR, Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C. No. 163. Para. 145; I/A Court HR, Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160. Para. 381; and I/A Court HR, Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, Para. 106.