A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 responsibilities, as well as to clarify the fate of the victim and to identify those responsible for his disappearance.151 C. Access to relevant information 35. The obligation to provide access to information constitutes a crucial part of an effective investigation. Authorities in charge of the investigation must have access to all relevant information, including military, police and intelligence information, and any classification of vital information for reasons of national security should be subjected to close scrutiny.152 36. Where applicants have no access to public information in the course of investigations, the European Court identified a violation of the procedural aspect of Article 2 ECHR, particularly considering procedural fairness. The investigative steps undertaken by relevant authorities must consider all elements of public scrutiny. At a minimum, according to the European Court, relatives of the victim of the disappearance “must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests.”153 Rendering the access to case files in administrative proceedings impossible to the next of kin of the victim was one of the considerations that led the European Court to conclude a violation of the procedural obligations by a state arising under Article 2 ECHR. 37. The European Court stated in Oğur v. Turkey (paragraph 92): “[…] during the administrative investigation the case file was inaccessible to the victim’s close relatives, who had no means of learning what was in it. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled on the decision of 15 August 1991 on the sole basis of the papers in the case, and this part of the proceedings was likewise inaccessible to the victim’s relatives. Nor was the decision of 15 August 1991 served on the applicant’s lawyer, with the result that the applicant was deprived of the possibility of herself appealing to the Supreme Administrative Court.” 38. The European Court stated in Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (paragraph 225): “[T]here must be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation or its results to secure accountability in practice as well as in theory. The degree of public scrutiny required may well vary from case to case. In all cases, however, the next-of-kin of the victim must be involved in the procedure to the extent necessary to safeguard his or her legitimate interests.” 39. In Tsechoyev v. Russia the European Court reiterated the significance of the relatives’ ability to access case files as a minimum standard of procedural obligations under Article 2 ECHR in relation to an effective investigation.154 40. Databases that contain information on the fate and whereabouts of a disappeared person have to be sufficiently interlinked. In Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, the European Court stressed the need for the State to create “a single, sufficiently high-level body in charge of solving disappearances in the region, which would enjoy unrestricted access to all relevant information and would work on the basis of trust and partnership with the relatives of the disappeared.”155 Limitations of access to official documents should be set down precisely in law, be considered necessary in a democratic society and be proportionate to the aim of protection. 156 In line with the European Court, the InterAmerican Court held that State authorities have to provide information about the results of 151 152 153 154 155 156 28 See IACHR, Radilla Pacheco Vs. México, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgement of 23 November 2009, para. 215; IACHR, Chitay Nech y otros Vs. Guatemala, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgement of 25 May 2010, para. 196; IACHR, Ibsen Cárdenas e Ibsen Peña Vs. Bolivia, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of 1 September 2010, para. 167; IACHR, Torres Millacura y otros Vs. Argentina, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgement 26 August 2011, para. 122; IACHR, Caso Gudiel Álvarez y otros (“Diario Militar”) Vs. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgement 20 November 2012, para. 259. See Section II, C of the Thematic Report. European Court of Human Rights, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, application No. 26307/95, 6 May 2003, paras. 224 and 225. European Court of Human Rights, Tsechoyev v. Russia, application No. 39358/05, 15 March 2011, para. 149. European Court of Human Rights, Aslakhanova and Others v. Russia, (see footnote 147) para. 225. Available at https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=262135.