“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. 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. The Inter-american Regional System 3 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.” The Inter-American Commission and Court are among the organs with jurisdiction in such cases. In Vargas Areco v Paraguay, the Court reaffirmed that “the duty to investigate is a compulsory obligation of the State embodied in international law, which cannot be mitigated by any domestic legislation or act whatsoever.”476 In Servellón-García v Honduras, the Court specified that the duty arises as soon as State authorities become aware of allegations or grounds to believe that torture has occurred, at which point “they must begin a serious, impartial, and effective investigation ex officio and without delay. This investigation must be carried out through all legal means available and oriented to the determination of the truth and the investigation, persecution, capture, prosecution, and… punishment of all those responsible for the facts.”477 Furthermore, to be considered effective, the investigation must comply with international standards. For example, in Vargas Areco v Paraguay, the Court considered that the investigation “should take into consideration the international rules for documenting and interpreting forensic evidence elements regarding the commission of acts of torture and, particularly, those defined in the Istanbul Protocol.”478 Vargas Areco v Paraguay, IACHR, (Series C) No. 155, judgement of 26 September 2006, §81. See also Baldeón-García v Peru, IACHR (Series C) No. 147, judgement of 6 April 2006, §157; Gutiérrez Soler v Colombia, IACHR (Series C) No. 132, judgement of 12 September 2005, §54; and Tibi v Ecuador (2004), op. cit., §159. 477 Servellón-García v Honduras (2006), op. cit., §119. See also Vargas Areco v Paraguay (2006), op. cit., §§74-81; Montero-Aranguren and Others (Detention Centre of Catia) v Venezuela, IACHR (Series C) No. 150, judgement of 5 July 2006, §79; Ximenes-Lopes v Brazil (2006), op. cit., §148; Ituango Massacres v Colombia, IACHR (Series C) No. 148 Judgement of 1 July 2006, §296; Baldeón-García v Peru (2006), op. cit., §94; Pueblo Bello Massacre v Colombia (2006), op. cit., §143. 478 Vargas Areco v Paraguay (2006), op. cit., §93. 476 104