A/HRC/14/42 VI. The right to know 41. The right to know is the pillar of the protection that ought to be given to missing persons and their families. 42. The right of family members to know the fate of missing relatives as a result of armed conflict, including their whereabouts or, if dead, the circumstances and cause of their deaths and the correlative obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the circumstances surrounding a disappearance, is provided for both under international human rights law and international humanitarian law. 43. The Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance provides in article 24, paragraph 2, that: “Each victim has the right to know the truth regarding the circumstances of the enforced disappearance, the progress and results of the investigation and the fate of the disappeared person. Each State Party shall take appropriate measures in this regard.” Under article 24, paragraph 1, of the Convention, “victim” means “the disappeared person and any individual who has suffered harm as the direct result of an enforced disappearance”. 44. The right of the relatives to know the fate of their family member is also laid down, as earlier mentioned, in article 32 of Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Article 33 of that Protocol further provides that “as soon as circumstances permit … each party to the conflict shall search for the persons who have been reported missing by an adverse Party”. The same was recognized as applying in non-international armed conflict. 45. The right to know also includes the right to get information about the place of burial of a missing relative, if known. Parties to a conflict must endeavour to facilitate the return of the remains of the deceased upon request of the party to which it belongs or upon the request of the next of kin, to whom the deceased’s personal effects must be returned. 46. In addition to international instruments which lay down obligations in relation to missing persons, there is also a wealth of relevant case law that has been built up by regional supervisory bodies over the past 20 years. Thus, it has been generally recognized that a person’s disappearance can inflict grievous suffering not only on the person who has disappeared but also on his family, and that this suffering can amount to inhuman treatment. Relevant examples from the case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights are the Velásquez Rodríguez case (1988) and the Blake case (1998). The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights took a similar line in the case of Amnesty International and others v. Sudan (1999). Reference should also be made to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights: in a number of its decisions the Strasbourg Court has emphasized the obligation of States to take adequate measures to trace missing persons and satisfy families’ right to know (see, e.g. Aziyev and Aziyeva v. Russia (2008)). 47. The Human Rights Council has discussed on various occasions the right to the truth, although in a broader context. In its resolution 12/12 of 12 October 2009, the Council recognized the importance of respecting and ensuring the right to the truth so as to contribute to ending impunity and to promote and protect human rights. The Council noted that the right to the truth may be characterized differently in some legal systems as the right to know or the right to be informed or freedom of information. 48. The right to know must be clearly recognized in domestic law and regulations. States and parties to an armed conflict are under an obligation to take the necessary measures to clarify the fate of the missing person and inform the family thereof. Family members must be regularly informed about the progress and results of investigation concerning the fate or whereabouts of a missing relative. Effective remedies, including adequate compensation, must be provided for any violation of this obligation. The 10 GE.10-12433