must be necessary for a democratic society, meaning that it must be a measure proportional to the satisfaction of the interest it seeks to achieve. 180 135. Although there is a general interest in safeguarding information related to national security, the State must devise the means to provide information relevant to the clarification of the forced disappearance of persons (infra para. 138). Likewise, restrictions on access to information in the context of the investigation of a forced disappearance are contrary to the right to the truth. As the UN Human Rights Council has pointed out, 181 the right to know the truth about the whereabouts of the disappeared person should not be conditional on limitation or suspension, nor should it yield to the invocation of legitimate purposes or exceptional circumstances. Similarly, forced disappearance also causes anguish and pain to the disappeared person's family, placing them on the threshold of cruel treatment and torture. 136. In these contexts, the right of access to information requires the active participation of all the authorities involved. It is not enough to provide or allege the absence of information to guarantee the right of access to information, but efforts to establish the whereabouts of the victim must be exhausted. In this regard, declassification and access to documents of the security forces is essential in order to ensure a transparent investigation. 137. The Inter-American Court has also developed content on the right to know the truth in cases of forced disappearance. Since the Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, and throughout its case law, the Court has recognized the “relatives' right to know the fate of the victims and, if they have been killed, the location of their remains." 182 As this Court has stated, "everyone, including the relatives of victims of serious human rights violations, has the right to know the truth [about them]," which implies that "they must be informed of everything that happened in relation to said violations." 183 The right to truth is autonomous and has a broad nature. Depending on the context and circumstances of the case, it may relate to various rights recognized in the American Convention, 184 such as the rights to judicial guarantees, and judicial protection, recognized by Articles 8 and 25 185 or the right of access to information, protected by Article 13. 186 138. The Court deems that in cases of human rights violations, the State authorities cannot resort to mechanisms such as official secret or confidentiality of the information, or reasons of public interest or national security, to refuse to supply the information required by the judicial or administrative authorities in charge of the ongoing investigation or proceeding, 187 and the parties must be included in these judicial and administrative proceedings. The state 180 Cf. Case of Claude Reyes v. Chile, supra, paras. 89-91, and Case of Moya Chacón et al. v. Costa Rica, supra, paras. 71 and 72. 181 Cf. United Nations Human Rights Council "General Comments on the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced disappearance," Report of the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, 2010. Document A/HRC/16/48, January 26, 2011, p.15, No. 4. See also Amicus Curiae prepared by the "Clínica Jurídica de Libertades Informativas y Transparencia de la Universidad del Pacífico" [Legal Clinic of Information Freedoms and Transparency of the University of the Pacific on the occasion of the Case of Flores Bedregal et al. v.] Bolivia, January 29, 2021. Available at: https://clinicajuridica.up.edu.pe/wp-content/uploads/Amicus-CLI-UP-CasoFlores-Bedregal-Vs.-Bolivia-FINAL.pdf 182 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 181, and Case of Maidanik et al. v. Uruguay, supra, para. 177. 183 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2002. Series No. 92, para. 100, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 114. 184 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia, supra, para. 101, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 115. 185 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 181, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 115. 186 In this regard, the Court observed that the right to know the truth was related to an action filed by family members to access certain information. 187 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 180, and Case of Movilla Galarcio et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 159. 42