A/HRC/5/7 page 15 B. Inter-American system 77. The Organization of American States (OAS), at its thirty-sixth regular session held in June 2006, adopted a resolution11 on the right to the truth, in which it recalls that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has recognized the right to the truth and that the regional community supports recognition of the right of victims of gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law, and their families and society as a whole, to know the truth regarding such violations to the fullest extent practicable, in particular the identity of the perpetrators, the causes and facts of such violations, and the circumstances under which they occurred. It also recognizes that States, within the framework of their own internal legal systems, should preserve records and other evidence concerning gross violations of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law, in order to facilitate knowledge of such violations, investigate allegations, and provide victims with access to an effective remedy in accordance with international law and in order to prevent these violations from occurring again in the future. It stresses the importance of ad hoc or non-judicial mechanisms, such as truth and reconciliation commissions, that complement the justice system and encourages States members of OAS to disseminate and implement their recommendations. It has furthermore tasked the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with the preparation of a report on the right to the truth. 78. In numerous cases which it adjudicated in 2006 and 2007,12 the Inter-American Court of Human Rights recalled that the families of victims of serious human rights violations had the right to know the truth and that that right was linked to the right to reparation and to the obligations of States to conduct impartial and thorough investigations and to prohibit impunity. The Court affirmed that when that right to the truth was recognized and exercised in a specific situation, it constituted an important measure of reparation for the victim and his family and was an expectation that the State must satisfy.13 According to the Court, the establishment of the truth as to the facts and the circumstances in which human rights violations were committed helps to preserve the historical memory, to make reparation to the victims’ next of kin and to avoid the repetition of similar acts.14 11 AG/RES. 2175 (XXXVI-O/06), 6 June 2006. 12 Judgement of 22 September 2006, Goiburu et al. v. Paraguay; judgement of 4 July 2006, Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil; judgement of 31 January 2006, Pueblo Bello massacre v. Colombia; judgement of 29 November 2006, La Cantura v. Peru; judgement of 6 April 2006, Baldéon Garcia v. Peru, para. 56; judgement of 1 July 2006, Ituango massacres v. Colombia; judgement of 5 July 2006, Montero Arangurén et al. (Réten de Cati) v. Venezuela. 13 Judgement of 22 September 2006, Goiburu et al. v. Paraguay, para. 164. 14 Judgement of 22 September 2006, Goiburu et al. v. Paraguay, para. 53.