A/HRC/45/13/Add.3 preventive dimension.177 In this context, truth-seeking processes and truth and reconciliation commissions should not absolve the States’ obligation to carry out an effective investigation into the facts.178 57. The Inter-American Court established most strongly that effective investigations are undertaken with the view to determine the truth surrounding the disappearance. Since the Velásquez Rodríguez Case, the Inter-American Court has affirmed in its jurisprudence the existence of a right of the victim’s relatives to know the victim’s fate and, if applicable, where a disappeared person’s remains are located.179 The Inter-American Court found for the first time in the Castillo-Páez Case that a failure to investigate corresponds to a violation of the right to truth.180 In this context, the right to truth refers to both, determining the factual circumstances of a disappearance and identifying alleged perpetrators responsible for it.181 The right to know the truth of the relatives of victims of serious human rights violations is framed within the right to access to justice and the duties to investigate and to prosecute, deriving from articles 8 and 25 ACHR.182 As part of these duties, States hold the obligation to effectively search for the truth, which is considered to be an independent duty from any criminal proceedings, which may be barred by statutes of limitation. 183 The Court has also considered the obligation to investigate as a form of reparation, given the need to remedy the violation of the right to truth. 184 The right to truth refers to a collective dimension, as a right owed to the society as a whole, in order to have access to information that is essential for the establishment and safeguarding of a democratic system.185 58. The Inter-American Court held in Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia in relation to the reasonable timeframe of an effective investigation (paragraph 171): “[T]he right of access to justice is not exhausted with the filing of domestic proceedings, but must also ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin for every necessary measure to be taken to know the truth about what happened and to sanction those who are eventually found to be responsible.” 59. The Inter-American Court stated in Castillo-Páez v. Peru, (paragraphs 85 and 86): “[T]he [Inter-American] Commission considers that there has been a violation of the right to truth and information, in the light of the State’s lack of interest in investigating the events that gave rise to this case. (…) it [the right to truth] may correspond to a concept that is being developed in doctrine and case law, which has already been disposed of in this Case through the Court’s decision to establish Peru’s obligation to investigate the events that produced the violations of the American Convention.” 60. The Inter-American Court stated in Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala (paragraphs 197 and 201): “[A]s a result of the disappearance of Bámaca Velásquez, the State violated the right to the truth of the next of kin of the victim and of society as a whole. In this respect, the Commission declared that the right to the truth has a collective nature, which includes the right of society to “have access to essential information for the development of democratic systems”, and a particular nature, as the right of the victims’ next of kin to know what happened to their loved ones, which permits a form of reparation (…). (para 201) [T]he right to the truth is subsumed in the right of the victim or his next of kin to obtain clarification of the facts relating to the violations and the corresponding responsibilities 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 32 A/HRC/16/48 para. 39; E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1 Principle 2. IACHR, 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of July 5, 2004, Series C No. 109, para. 72(g). IACHR, Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras (see footnote 123) para. 181. IACHR, Castillo Páez v. Peru, Judgment of November 3, 1997, Series C No. 34 paras. 85 and 86; IACHR, Castillo-Páez v. Peru, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998, Series C No. 43 para. 106. IACHR, Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador (see footnote 128) para. 62. IACHR, Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala (see footnote 124) para. 201. IACHR, Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras (see footnote 123) para. 177; IACHR, Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala, Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. para. 226; IACHR, La Cantuta v. Peru (see footnote 183) para. 157. IACHR, Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador (see footnote 128) para. 62. IACHR, Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala (see footnote 124) para. 197; IACHR, Serrano-Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador (see footnote 126) para. 62.