30 among the siblings of Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, they included his name on the list of beneficiaries contained in the brief with final arguments. According to the sworn statement made by Amelia Santa Cruz-Portocarrero, the victim’s mother, Luis Mori Santa Cruz is a relative of her brother, Luis Santa Cruz-Portocarrero, but not a brother of the victim, nor did he live in the same house. The Court observes that even though Luis Mori Santa Cruz and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz could be related, it does not find that a violation of the personal integrity of the former has been proved as a result of the facts of this case. Lastly, with regard to Isaac Cantoral Huamaní, who had been included in the Commission’s application, it has been proved before the Court that he died in 1975 and was not alive at the time of the death of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní; therefore he was not included in the briefs with final arguments of the Inter-American Commission or the representatives. IX ARTICLES 8 (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL)84 AND 25 (JUDICIAL PROTECTION)85 IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 4 (RIGHT TO LIFE), 5 (RIGHT TO HUMANE TREATMENT) AND 7 (PERSONAL LIBERTY), AND ARTICLE 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 122. The Inter-American Commission states that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention to the detriment of Saúl CantoralHuamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, and their next of kin. The representatives of the alleged victims endorsed the arguments of the Commission, and stated that, since the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible had not been complied with, a situation of impunity existed that failed to guarantee the non-repetition of similar facts in the future. 123. The State acknowledged that “the limited progress in the investigation into these murders during 17 years cannot be denied; during this time, investigations by both the police and the Attorney General’s office have been unsuccessful.” Nevertheless, the Court notes that the State also indicated that “it is only partially responsible for failing to respect the judicial guarantees and judicial protection of the victims and their next of kin.” In its opinion, owing to “the existence of an independent and impartial investigative procedure before the Attorney General’s Office, the violation has ceased and has not been consummated […]” (supra para. 26) 124. First, the Court recalls 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.86 84 The relevant provisions of this article establish that: 1. 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. 85 The relevant provisions of this article establish that: 1. 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. 86 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 145; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru, supra note 6, para. 381; and Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 106.