76 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. 109. Article 25 of the Convention stipulates: 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. 2. The States Parties undertake: (a) to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; (b) to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and (c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 110. The Court has affirmed that, under the American Convention, the States Parties are obliged to provide effective judicial remedies to the victims of human rights violations (Article 25), remedies that must be implemented according to the rules of due process of law (Article 8(1)), all within the general obligation of States to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction free and full exercise of the rights established in the Convention (Article 1(1)).82 In this chapter, the Court will examine, first, the due diligence in conducting the official investigations, as well as additional elements to determine whether the proceedings have been conducted respecting the right to a fair trial and within a reasonable time, and have constituted an effective recourse to ensure the rights of access to justice, investigation of the truth of the facts, and reparation for the next of kin. Second, given the characteristics of the instant case, it is also essential to refer to the mechanism of extradition in cases of grave human rights violations. (a) Effectiveness of the recourses for conducting the official investigations and to ensure, within a reasonable time, the rights of access to justice, the truth of the facts, and reparation for the next of kin 111. The Court observes that, to determine due diligence in the conduct of the official investigations and the effective observance of the right of access to justice within a reasonable time,83 it must make its analysis in two stages: first, from the detention of the victims up until 1989 when the dictatorship fell and, following that date, when three criminal proceedings were initiated in relation to the facts of this case. 82 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 8, para. 175; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 287, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 5, para. 169. 83 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 287; Case of Baldeón García, supra note 6, para. 139, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 216.