- 95 - alleged that the state of Mexico’s Law to Prevent and Punish Torture “requires proof that the purpose of the perpetrator was to obtain something from the victim or from a third party, which is contrary to Article 2 [of the Inter-American Convention against Torture],” and that article 3 of the Federal Law to Prevent and Punish Torture currently in force does not comply with the standards established in the Inter-American Convention against Torture.” Lastly, they asserted that “[t]he State laws […] did not include procedures with a gender perspective […] in order to guarantee access to justice for women victims of torture,” and that “by failing to adopt domestic legal provisions […] to respond appropriately to acts of violence against women […] the Mexican State was internationally responsible for non-compliance with Article 2 of the [American Convention].” 265. Meanwhile, the State alleged that: (i) the initial deficiencies had been rectified, eliminating the obstacles arising from the errors originally committed, and (ii) that it had already investigated the chain of command and all those presumed to be responsible, adding that the Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on individual criminal responsibility. B. Considerations of the Court 266. First, the Court finds it necessary to note that this section refers to the investigations conducted into the acts of torture and sexual violence of which the eleven women were victims, and not to the criminal proceedings that were instituted against them. Thus, since the representatives expressly indicated that they were not requesting a ruling “on the violations of the judicial guarantees and judicial protection of the eleven women during the criminal proceedings instituted against them,” the Court will not make this analysis. 267. This Court has established that, pursuant to the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human right 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 those States to ensure the free and full exercise of the rights recognized by the Convention to every person subject to their jurisdiction (Article 1(1)).360 It has also indicated that the right of access to justice must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the presumed victims or their next of kin that everything necessary is done to discover the truth of what happened, and to prosecute and to punish, as appropriate, those eventually found to be responsible. 361 268. In addition, the Court recalls that the State acknowledged its international responsibility with regard to the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection and equality before the law, (Articles 8, 24 and 25 of the Convention) and the obligation to investigate acts of torture and violence against women (Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará), owing to the initial failure to investigate ex officio the facts and the inappropriate definition of the offenses at the start. The State also acknowledged its international responsibility in this case for the violation of its obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions to ensure the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention, the Inter-American Convention against Torture, and the Convention of Belém do Pará, in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 91, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 217. 360 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 217. 361