criminal proceedings against Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, evidentiary value was given to statements and self-incriminating confessions obtained under duress. The representatives also noted the following irregularities: the reversal of the burden of proof to the detriment of the accused; the presumption of guilt arising from the admission of a series of tainted or insufficient evidence and the lack of a proper defense and effective remedies. In this respect, the representatives argued that the appeal through the filing of a direct amparo was ineffective, among other reasons, because of the erroneous application of the principle of procedural immediacy, the failure to exclude evidence obtained under torture and because it was not possible to contest both the detention and the solitary confinement of Messrs. Cabrera and Montiel, since the court considered that “it was not the appropriate procedural moment.” Furthermore, the Commission and the representatives claimed that the victims’ accusations regarding the alleged torture committed against them did not lead to investigations ex officio; that the proceeding was conducted by a jurisdiction that was not competent, and within an unreasonable time; that essential procedures were not followed; and that an effective remedy was not afforded to the alleged victims to allow them to contest the exercise of the military jurisdiction. 139. The State argued that all judicial guarantees were strictly observed in the proceedings conducted against the victims, and that the defense had access to several simple and expedite remedies, which it used to the full. It added that these remedies were effective, insofar as some of the charges were withdrawn and some items of evidence that were not initially taken into account were assessed, thanks to the filing of such remedies. The State further indicated that “the fact that the appeals filed by the defense were not resolved, in general, favorably” does not imply that the victims “did not have access to effective remedies.” As to the investigation for the alleged torture, the State pointed out that the remedies filed by the defense before the competent, impartial and independent judicial bodies led to substantive discussions to shed light on the alleged torture. Moreover, it indicated that there is nothing to suggest that the court or any other state agent intended to delay the investigation. 140. Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes the guidelines of the so-called “due process of law,” which involves, among other aspects, the right of every person to be heard with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent and impartial Court , previously established by law, for the determination of his rights. 212 141. Moreover, Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes, in broad terms, the obligation of every State Party to provide, to all persons subject to its jurisdiction, an effective legal remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights. 213 In particular, this Court has established that States Parties have an obligation to provide effective legal remedies to victims of human rights violations (Art. 25). Such remedies must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law (Art. 8(1)), in keeping with the general obligation of States to guarantee the with their constitutional processes and the provisions of this Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to those rights or freedoms. 212 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 74; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti, supra note 49, para. 79; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina, supra note 123, para. 101. 213 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C N° 1, para. 91; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico, supra note 39, para. 180; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico, supra note 30, para. 164. 55