29 the Inter-American Commission did not file any allegations in that respect. It it is now well established by the Court that the representatives may argue violations of the Convention other than those alleged by the Commission, as long as such legal arguments are based upon the facts set out in the application.25 Petitioners are the persons entitled to the rights protected by the Convention; therefore, restricting their possibility to submit their own allegations of fact would amount to an undue restriction of their right to justice which derives from their legal standing as Subjects of International Human Rights Law.26 54. The Court considers that, in the light of the general obligation of the State Parties to respect and guarantee the rights of all persons subject to its jurisdiction, contained in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State has the obligation to commence immediately an effective investigation that may allow the identification, the trial and the punishment of those liable, whenever there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention. Furthermore, this action is specifically regulated in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, which Articles bind the State Parties to take all steps that may be effective to prevent and punish all acts of torture within the scope of their jurisdiction, as well as to guarantee that all torture cases be examined impartially.27 In the instant case, the Court finds that Colombia did not abide by these provisions, since, to this date, no person has been punished for the tortures inflicted on Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler and the State itself has recognized the existence of shortcomings in judicial guarantees of due process of law its internal proceedings (supra paras. 26, 28 and 48(10)). From the moment the said Inter-American Convention against Torture became effective in Colombia on February 18, 1999, the State is bound to comply with the obligations set forth in such treaty. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, such conduct is considered a failure to comply with the obligations stated in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, as regards the duty to prevent and punish torture domestically. 55. On the other hand, the representatives further alleged that the State violated the right to humane treatment, set forth in Article 5 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler’s next of kin; the Commission did not submit any allegations in that respect. guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of his case. Likewise, if there is an accusation or well-grounded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed within their jurisdiction, the States Parties shall guarantee that their respective authorities will proceed properly and immediately to conduct an investigation into the case and to initiate, whenever appropriate, the corresponding criminal process. After all the domestic legal procedures of the respective State and the corresponding appeals have been exhausted, the case may be submitted to the international fora whose competence has been recognized by that State.” 25 Cf. Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 183; Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 3, para. 88; and Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 9, para. 91. 26 Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 9, para. 91; Case of De La Cruz Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 122; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 8, para. 125. 27 Cf. Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 159; Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 114; and Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 95.