28 and the State (Army) to each of the families of Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez, together with a payment of 10,000 new sols to Luis Alberto Bejarano. 136. Based on the established facts, the parties’ contentions, and the foregoing analysis, the Commission therefore concludes that since a member of the army caused the deaths of Ms. Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Ms. Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and wounded Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura on August 9, 1994, during a military operation in which they were not authorized to stop vehicles or use their service weapons, since there was no rationale whatsoever for those actions, and since no thorough investigation was conducted during the first stage of the criminal proceedings, the State of Peru did violate Article 4.1 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Zulema Tarazona Arrieta and Norma Pérez Chávez, and that it did violate Article 5.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof, with respect to Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura. Irrespective of the foregoing, the Commission believes that since the competent courts did convict the perpetrator of those actions and enforce the payment of compensation to the families of the deceased victims and to Alberto Bejarano Laura, as provided for in the judgment of July 23, 2008, the violation was remedied in part. 2. Violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to judicial protection (Articles 8.1 and 25 of the American Convention), in conjunction with the obligation to respect human rights and to adopt domestic legal effects (Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof) 137. Article 8.1 of the American Convention provides that: 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. 138. Article 25.1 of the Convention, in turn, reads: 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. 139. The Commission notes that one basic principle in the law of international state responsibility, enshrined in international human rights law, is that a State is internationally responsible for acts and omissions by any of its agencies or agents in violation of internationally established rights, 153 pursuant to Article 1.1 of the American Convention. In this regard, Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention define the scope of that principle, with reference to the actions and omissions of the domestic judicial 154 organs. 140. The Inter-American Court has ruled that: 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 153 I/A Court H. R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2006, Series C No. 149, para. 172; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147, para. 140; I/A Court H. R., Case of the Massacre of Pueblo Bello v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of January 31, 2006, Series C No. 140, paras. 111 and 112; and I/A Court H. R., Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 15, 2005, Series C No. 134, para. 108. 154 I/A Court H. R., Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of July 4, 2006, Series C No. 149, para. 173; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of April 6, 2006, Series C No. 147, para. 141; I/A Court H. R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of February 1, 2006, Series C No. 141, para. 28; and Case of Herrera Ulloa, Judgment of July 2, 2004, Series C No. 107, para. 109.