101. On April 3, 2013, the 34th Court ordered that a note be sent to the Museum of Memory and Human Rights, requesting it to provide information “on all the political records, and records of detention, etc. of [Mr.] García Lucero” that it possesses. 120 102. According to the information provided to the Court by the State on April 21, 2013, when it presented its final written arguments, “the domestic investigations” are being processed in the ordinary jurisdiction before the 34th Court, under case N-1.261.2011, and are “in the preliminary stages, awaiting pending measures.” VII JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE GENERAL OBLIGATION TO ENSURE HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE OBLIGATION TO ADAPT DOMESTIC LEGISLATION AND THE OBLIGATIONS TO INVESTIGATE AND TO PUNISH ACTS OF TORTURE AND TO GUARANTEE THEIR INTEGRAL REPARATION A. Introduction 103. In this case, the Commission and the representatives, based on partially different norms, argued that the State had violated its obligations in relation to the investigation of the acts suffered by Mr. García Lucero and the reparation of the harm they caused. 104. The Inter-American Commission maintained that, in this case, there had been a violation of the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection and also to humane treatment, in relation to the obligation to investigate, “to the detriment of Mr. García Lucero and his family,” based on the failure to comply with the obligation “to ensure” the “rights and freedoms recognized in [the Convention],” as well as “to adapt domestic law” in relation to the continued existence of Decree Law No. 2,191. Accordingly, it asked the Court to declare the violation of Articles 8(1), 121 25(1), 122 5(1), 123 1(1) 124 and 2 125 of the American Convention and Article 8 126 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. 120 Cf. Decision of April 3, 2013, of Cheryl Fernández Albornoz, Alternate Judge of the 34th Court (annexes to the final written arguments of the State, annex 3, f. 1251). 121 Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes that: “[e]very 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.” 122 Article 25(1) of the Convention states that: “[e]veryone 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.” 123 Article 5(1) of the American Convention stipulates that: “[e]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected.” 124 Article 1(1) of the Convention establishes that: “[t]he States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition.” 125 Article 2 of the Convention stipulates: “[w]here the exercise of any of the rights or freedoms referred to in Article 1 is not already ensured by legislative or other provisions, the States Parties undertake to adopt, in accordance 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.” 126 Article 8 of the Convention against Torture states that: The States Parties shall 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.” 34