86. The Court recalls that every person, including the family members of the victims of grave human rights violations, has the right to know the truth of what occurred. Therefore, the family members of the victims and society should be informed of what occurred with respect to such violations. Although the right to know the truth has been basically found within the right to access to justice, it has a broad nature and its infringement can affect different rights established in the American Convention, depending on the particular circumstances of the case.86 87. In cases of forced disappearances, the right to know the whereabouts of the victims is an essential component of the right to truth. In this case, more than 30 years after the first news of the forced disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán, his whereabouts is still unknown. Although the case was included in the Report of the Truth Commission, which indicated that Mr. Garzón Guzmán was the victim of a forced disappearance presumably committed by State agents -and the Court recognizes that the Report is the best effort available to clarify what occurred- that type of report, while important, is a complement and not a substitute for the State’s obligation to establish the truth by means of judicial proceedings. 87 In addition, the Report makes no reference in any way to the whereabouts or fate of Mr. Garzón Guzmán. 88. Therefore, the Court declares the violation of the right to know the truth, to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Garzón Guzmán. In this case in particular, this violation is part of the right to access to justice. C. Conclusion 89. The Inter-American Court finds that the State of Ecuador: i) failed to comply with its duty to initiate de officio and conduct, with due diligence, the investigations relating to the forced disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán; 2) failed to comply with its duty of due diligence in searching for Mr. Garzón Guzmán and 3) failed in its duty to guarantee a reasonable time in the judicial proceedings and the right to know the truth. Therefore, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, the latter as of August 26, 2006, to the detriment of César Gustavo Garzón Guzmán and Julio Garzón, Clorinda Guzmán, Luis Alberto Garzón Guzmán, Rodrigo Garzón Guzmán, Luis Lascano and Ana Julia Lascano, as next of kin of Mr. Garzón Guzmán. VIII-3 RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT OF KIN OF MR. GARZÓN GUZMÁN, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE THE RIGHTS88 A. Considerations of the Court Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series C No. 92, para. 100 and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 213. This Court also finds that different instances have recognized the autonomous nature of the right to truth in cases related to grave human rights violations. Cf. Human Rights Commission, Study on the right to truth, Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner of Human Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/91, January 9, 2006, para. 42. 86 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 128 and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 510. 87 88 Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. 22